modeling and analysis of long-term shifts in bioenergy...

Modeling and Analysis of Long-Term Shifts

in Bioenergy Use-With Special Reference to Ethiopia: Improving Sustainable Development

Author: Azemeraw Tadesse Mengistu

Master of Science Thesis

KTH School of Industrial Engineering and Management

Energy Technology EGI-2013-124MSC

Division of Energy and Climate Studies

SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM

[Modeling and Analysis of Long-Term Shifts in Bioenergy Use] [2013]

Azemeraw Tadesse Page I

Master of Science Thesis EGI-2013-124MSC

Modeling and Analysis of Long-Term Shifts

in Bioenergy Use

(With Special Reference to Ethiopia)

Azemeraw Tadesse Mengistu

Approved

26-09-2013

Examiner

Professor Semida Silveira

Supervisor

Francis X. Johnson

Dilip Khatiwada

Commissioner

Contact Person

Abstract

Ethiopia is one of the sub-Saharan Africa countries whose energy depends on traditional use of biomass such as wood, charcoal, agricultural residues and animal dung. The traditional use of biomass mainly wood and charcoal leads the country to massive deforestation and forest degradation. Negative environmental impacts from poorly managed municipal solid waste are also serious problems in the country. Moreover, there is a wide range of fossil fuels demand in the country fully covered by importing which results to a significant expenditure from the country’s budget. This study investigates the long-term shifts in bioenergy use of the country and evaluates the expected social, environmental and economical implications. For this purpose, three scenarios are formulated within a timeframe that goes from 2013 to 2030. The baseline scenario assumes the existing energy practices of the country would undergo no significant change in the future while the moderate shift and high shift scenarios consider the long-term shifts in bioenergy use with and without considering constraints respectively. In this context, long-term shifts means: transition from traditional use of biomass to efficient and modern in the household sector, biofuels deployment in the transport sector, introduction of agricultural residues as a fuel for cement production, and electricity generation from bagasse and municipal solid waste. To model and analyze the scenarios, the long-range energy alternatives planning system (LEAP) software tool is used. Taking the results of high shift scenario by 2030, the use of improved wood stoves and fuel switch stoves could save 65 million tons of wood. The foreign currency saving from using biofuels and agricultural residues as fossil fuels substitute would reach to 674 million USD. The greenhouse gas emissions reduction is equivalent to 46 million tons of CO2e which is about 18.4% of the CO2e abatement target of the country for 2030. The corresponding revenue from carbon trading schemes would reach to 231 million USD. Electricity generation from bagasse and municipal solid waste would be 3,672 GWh that is around 3.7% of the total electricity generation target for 2030.

Keywords: Bioenergy, Traditional Use of Biomass, Efficient and Modern Use of Biomass, Fossil Fuels, Deforestation and Forest Degradation, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Foreign Currency, Carbon Trading Schemes, Scenario, Modeling and Analysis, and Long-Term Shifts


Azemeraw Tadesse Page II

Acknowledgement

Before and above all, I thank GOD the Almighty for making me healthy and happy while doing this

thesis.

My gratitude goes to Francis X. Johnson and Dilip Khatiwada for providing useful insights and helpful

advice. The thesis would not have been accomplished without their valuable, genuine, timely and

unreserved guidance and advice. I thank them for their friendly approach and dedicated effort to

accomplish the thesis wonderfully. I would like to extend my gratitude to Stockholm Environment

Institute (SEI) for giving me internship. I would like to express my grateful appreciation to all Officials

and Experts from the stakeholders of Ethiopian energy sector (listed in appendix 7) who participated in

the survey questionnaire and interview by giving their precious time and showing positive attitude

towards the study. I would also like to thank Desta Zahlay (PhD Candidate at School of Electrical

Engineering, KTH) and Yaser Tohidi (PhD Candidate at School of Electrical Engineering, KTH) for

their constructive suggestions and comments. I would like to offer my appreciation to my friends Tomas

Cherkos, Tirufat Dejene and Yacob Gebreyohannes for their courage and support especially during

the fieldwork.

Finally, I thank my mother Workinesh Tadesse for her love and courage throughout my life. Thank you

mother!!!

Azemeraw Tadesse Mengistu

830528-T316

MSc, Energy Innovation Renewable Energy Track

KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 2013


Azemeraw Tadesse Page III

Table of Contents

Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ I

Acknowledgement .......................................................................................................................... II

List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. VII

List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. VIII

List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................................ IX

List of Conversion Factors .............................................................................................................. X

1 Chapter One: Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Background Information ......................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................................................ 3

1.3 Objective of the Study .............................................................................................................................. 4

1.4 Significance of the Study .......................................................................................................................... 4

1.5 Scope of the Study .................................................................................................................................... 4

1.6 Research Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 5

1.7 Organization of the Study ........................................................................................................................ 7

2 Chapter Two: Overview of Global Bioenergy ............................................................................ 9

2.1 Global Energy Balance ............................................................................................................................. 9

2.2 Biomass Conversion Processes ............................................................................................................. 10

2.3 Bioethanol Production ........................................................................................................................... 11

2.4 Biodiesel Production ............................................................................................................................... 13

2.5 Biogas Production ................................................................................................................................... 14

2.6 Charcoal Production ............................................................................................................................... 16

2.7 Electricity Generation ............................................................................................................................ 17

3 Chapter Three: Ethiopian Energy Outlook ............................................................................. 18

3.1 Energy Balance of Ethiopia ................................................................................................................... 18

3.1.1 Primary Energy Supply ............................................................................................................ 18

3.1.2 Electricity Production .............................................................................................................. 18

3.1.3 Energy Consumption .............................................................................................................. 19

3.2 Energy Trends of Ethiopia .................................................................................................................... 20

3.2.1 Trend of Petroleum Consumption ........................................................................................ 20

3.2.2 Trend of Hydroelectricity Generation .................................................................................. 21

3.2.3 Trend of Non-Hydro Electricity Generation ...................................................................... 21


Azemeraw Tadesse Page IV

3.3 Energy Resource of Ethiopia ................................................................................................................ 22

3.3.1 Hydro ......................................................................................................................................... 22

3.3.2 Geothermal ............................................................................................................................... 23

3.3.3 Wind ........................................................................................................................................... 23

3.3.4 Solar Energy .............................................................................................................................. 23

3.3.5 Bioenergy ................................................................................................................................... 23

3.3.6 Fossil Fuels ................................................................................................................................ 23

3.4 Electricity Generation Targets of Ethiopia ......................................................................................... 23

4 Chapter Four: Bioenergy Resources of Ethiopia .................................................................... 25

4.1 Wood ......................................................................................................................................................... 25

4.2 Charcoal .................................................................................................................................................... 25

4.3 Agricultural Residues .............................................................................................................................. 26

4.4 Animal Dung............................................................................................................................................ 27

4.5 Sugarcane .................................................................................................................................................. 27

4.6 Bagasse ...................................................................................................................................................... 28

4.7 Jatropha ..................................................................................................................................................... 28

4.8 Castor ........................................................................................................................................................ 28

4.9 Palm ........................................................................................................................................................... 28

4.10 Municipal Solid Waste ............................................................................................................................ 29

4.11 Bioethanol Production in Ethiopia ...................................................................................................... 29

4.12 Biodiesel Production in Ethiopia .......................................................................................................... 30

4.13 Biogas Production in Ethiopia .............................................................................................................. 30

4.14 Cooking Stoves in Ethiopia ................................................................................................................... 30

4.14.1 Three Stones Fire ..................................................................................................................... 31

4.14.2 Traditional Charcoal Stove ..................................................................................................... 31

4.14.3 Improved Wood Stove ............................................................................................................ 31

4.14.4 Improved Charcoal Stove ....................................................................................................... 31

4.14.5 Electric Stove ............................................................................................................................ 32

4.14.6 Kerosene Stove ......................................................................................................................... 32

4.14.7 LPG Stove ................................................................................................................................. 32

4.14.8 Bioethanol Stove ...................................................................................................................... 32

4.14.9 Biogas Stove .............................................................................................................................. 32

5 Chapter Five: Policy Background and Stakeholders ............................................................... 33

5.1 Energy Policy of Ethiopia ...................................................................................................................... 33

5.1.1 Objectives of Energy Policy ................................................................................................... 33


Azemeraw Tadesse Page V

5.1.2 Main Issues of the Energy Policy .......................................................................................... 33

5.2 Environmental Policy of Ethiopia ........................................................................................................ 34

5.3 Green Economy Strategy of Ethiopia ................................................................................................. 35

5.4 Stakeholders of Ethiopian Energy System .......................................................................................... 36

5.4.1 Governmental Organizations ................................................................................................. 37

5.4.2 Developmental Partners .......................................................................................................... 38

6 Chapter Six: Modeling and Analysis ....................................................................................... 41

6.1 Data Organization and Justification ..................................................................................................... 41

6.1.1 Population and Gross Domestic Product (GDP)............................................................... 41

6.1.2 Percentage Distribution of Households by Cooking Stove .............................................. 41

6.1.3 Energy Efficiency of Cooking Stoves ................................................................................... 42

6.1.4 Average Annual Consumption of Cooking Fuels per Household ................................... 43

6.1.5 Consumption of Bioethanol ................................................................................................... 43

6.1.6 Consumption of Gasoline ...................................................................................................... 44

6.1.7 Consumption of Biodiesel ...................................................................................................... 44

6.1.8 Consumption of Diesel ........................................................................................................... 44

6.1.9 Energy for Cement Production ............................................................................................. 45

6.2 Scenario Formulation ............................................................................................................................. 45

6.2.1 Baseline Scenario ...................................................................................................................... 46

6.2.2 Moderate Shift Scenario .......................................................................................................... 49

6.2.3 High Shift Scenario .................................................................................................................. 53

6.3 LEAP Branch Structure of the Model ................................................................................................. 55

7 Chapter Seven: Results ............................................................................................................ 58

7.1 Energy Demand ...................................................................................................................................... 58

7.1.1 Sector .......................................................................................................................................... 58

7.1.2 Household ................................................................................................................................. 59

7.1.3 Otto IC Engine Vehicles ......................................................................................................... 61

7.1.4 Diesel IC Engine Vehicles ...................................................................................................... 62

7.1.5 Cement Industry ....................................................................................................................... 62

7.1.6 Electricity Generation ............................................................................................................. 62

7.2 Production ................................................................................................................................................ 62

7.3 Primary Resources Requirement ........................................................................................................... 63

7.4 Indicators .................................................................................................................................................. 64

7.4.1 GHG Emissions Saving .......................................................................................................... 64

7.4.2 Wood Saving ............................................................................................................................. 65


Azemeraw Tadesse Page VI

7.4.3 Foreign Currency Saving ......................................................................................................... 65

7.4.4 Land Use .................................................................................................................................... 66

8 Chapter Eight: Discussion and Conclusion ............................................................................ 67

8.1 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................ 67

8.2 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 72

9 Chapter Nine: Recommendation and Future Work ................................................................ 74

9.1 Recommendation .................................................................................................................................... 74

9.2 Future Work ............................................................................................................................................. 76

References ...................................................................................................................................... 77

Annexes .......................................................................................................................................... 82

Annex 1: Net Calorific Value and CO2 Emission Factor ............................................................................ 82

Annex 2: Percentage Distribution of Households by Cooking Fuel in Ethiopia .................................... 82

Annex 3: Sugar and Bioethanol Development Projects in Ethiopia .......................................................... 83

Annex 4: Land Use for Sugarcane Cultivation in Ethiopia ......................................................................... 83

Annex 5: Trend of Bioethanol Blend in Ethiopia ......................................................................................... 84

Annex 6: List of Investors for Biodiesel Development in Ethiopia .......................................................... 84

Annex 7: List of Contacts during the Fieldwork ........................................................................................... 84

Annex 8: Survey Questionnaire ........................................................................................................................ 85


Azemeraw Tadesse Page VII

List of Figures

Figure 1.1: Location of Ethiopia ............................................................................................................................... 2

Figure 1.2: Scope/boundary of the study ................................................................................................................ 5

Figure 1.3: Demand-resource tree ............................................................................................................................. 7

Figure 1.4: Schematic diagram for organization of the study ............................................................................... 8

Figure 2.1: Share of global primary energy supply mix in 2000 and 2010 .......................................................... 9

Figure 2.2: Share of global primary bioenergy supply mix in 2010 and by 2035 ............................................. 10

Figure 2.3: Biomass conversion processes and technologies .............................................................................. 11

Figure 2.4: Feedstock used to produce bioethanol ............................................................................................... 11

Figure 2.5: Bioethanol production process flow diagram from sugarcane ....................................................... 12

Figure 2.6: Bioethanol production process flow diagram from cellulosic biomass ........................................ 13

Figure 2.7: Feedstock used to produce biodiesel .................................................................................................. 13

Figure 2.8: Biodiesel production process flow diagram ....................................................................................... 14

Figure 2.9: Fixed dome, floating dome and bag digesters ................................................................................... 15

Figure 2.10: Biogas production process flow diagram ......................................................................................... 15

Figure 2.11: Traditional earth mound kiln and beehive kiln ............................................................................... 16

Figure 2.12: Typical retorting kiln ........................................................................................................................... 17

Figure 3.1: Share of total primary energy supply of Ethiopia in 2009 ............................................................... 18

Figure 3.2: Share of electricity generation of Ethiopia in 2009 .......................................................................... 19

Figure 3.3: Share of energy consumption of Ethiopia in 2009 ........................................................................... 19

Figure 3.4: Schematic energy profile diagram of Ethiopia .................................................................................. 20

Figure 3.5: Trend of petroleum consumption of Ethiopia (‘000 Barrels) ......................................................... 21

Figure 3.6: Trend of hydroelectricity generation of Ethiopia (TWh) ................................................................ 21

Figure 3.7: Trend of non-hydro electricity generation of Ethiopia (TWh) ...................................................... 22

Figure 4.1: Fuel wood collection in Ethiopia ........................................................................................................ 25

Figure 4.2: Charcoal production in Ethiopia using traditional earth mound kiln ........................................... 26

Figure 4.3: Charcoal ready for selling ..................................................................................................................... 26

Figure 4.4: Baking with three stones fire ................................................................................................................ 31

Figure 5.1: Share of GHG emissions by sectors of Ethiopia in 2010 ............................................................... 36

Figure 6.1: LEAP branch structure of the model ................................................................................................. 56

Figure 6.2: Demand to resource relationship diagram ......................................................................................... 57

Figure 7.1: Energy demand of sectors by 2015 ..................................................................................................... 58

Figure 7.2: Energy demand of sectors by 2030 ..................................................................................................... 59

Figure 7.3: Energy demand for cooking by urban households by 2015 ........................................................... 59

Figure 7.4: Energy demand for cooking by urban households by 2030 ........................................................... 60

Figure 7.5: Energy demand for cooking by rural households by 2015 ............................................................. 60

Figure 7.6: Energy demand for cooking by rural households by 2030 ............................................................. 61

Figure 7.7: Primary resources requirement by 2015 ............................................................................................. 63

Figure 7.8: Primary resources requirement by 2030 ............................................................................................. 64

Figure 8.1: Trends of wood demand for cooking and charcoal making ........................................................... 67

Figure 8.2: Trends of charcoal demand for cooking ............................................................................................ 68

Figure 8.3: Trends of bioethanol demand for transport and cooking ............................................................... 69

Figure 8.4: Trends of biodiesel demand for transport ......................................................................................... 70

Figure 8.5: Trends of biogas demand for cooking ............................................................................................... 70

Figure 8.6: Trends of agricultural residues demand for cement industries ....................................................... 71

Figure 8.7: Trends of electricity demand for cooking .......................................................................................... 72


Azemeraw Tadesse Page VIII

List of Tables

Table 1.1: Bioenergy resources utilization strategy ................................................................................................. 6

Table 2.1: Global primary energy demand in 2000 and 2010 ............................................................................... 9

Table 2.2: Global bioethanol production in 2010 ................................................................................................. 12

Table 2.3: Top biodiesel producing countries in 2010 ......................................................................................... 14

Table 2.4: Global charcoal production in 2009 ..................................................................................................... 16

Table 3.1: Electricity generation targets of Ethiopia ............................................................................................ 24

Table 4.1: Estimated annual animal dung production ......................................................................................... 27

Table 6.1: Trend of population and GDP of Ethiopia ........................................................................................ 41

Table 6.2: Percentage distribution of households by cooking stove ................................................................. 41

Table 6.3: Thermal efficiency of cooking stove .................................................................................................... 42

Table 6.4: Average annual consumption of cooking fuels per household ........................................................ 43

Table 6.5: Trend of gasoline import in Ethiopia .................................................................................................. 44

Table 6.6: Trend of diesel import in Ethiopia ....................................................................................................... 44

Table 6.7: Trend of cement production in Ethiopia ............................................................................................ 45

Table 6.8: Annual growth rate of household percentage distribution by cooking stove ................................ 46

Table 6.9: Summary of parameters for the baseline scenario ............................................................................. 48

Table 6.10: Summary of parameters for the moderate shift scenario ................................................................ 52

Table 6.11: Summary of parameters for the high shift scenario ........................................................................ 54

Table 7.1: Energy demand of sectors by 2015 and 2030 ..................................................................................... 59

Table 7.2: Energy demand for cooking by 2015 and 2030.................................................................................. 61

Table 7.3: Production by 2015/17 and 2030 ......................................................................................................... 62

Table 7.4: Primary resources requirement by 2015/17 and 2030 ...................................................................... 64

Table 7.5: GHG emissions saving by 2015/17 and 2030 .................................................................................... 65

Table 7.6: Wood saving by 2015 and 2030 ............................................................................................................ 65

Table 7.7: Foreign currency saving by 2015/17 and 2030 .................................................................................. 66

Table 7.8: Land Use by 2017 and 2030 .................................................................................................................. 66


Azemeraw Tadesse Page IX

List of Acronyms

AfDB African Development Bank

BADEA Arab Bank for Economic Development in Africa

CSA Central Statistics Agency

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent

EEA Ethiopian Electricity Agency

EEPCo Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation

EIA Energy Information Administration

EPA Environment Protection Agency

EPSE Ethiopian Petroleum Suppliers Enterprise

EREDPC Ethiopian Rural Energy Development and Promotion Center

ESCo Ethiopian Sugar Corporation

ETB Ethiopian Birr

EU European Union

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit

GTP Growth and Transformation Plan

IEA International Energy Agency

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

HoAREC Horn of Africa Regional Environment Center

MDGs Millennium Development Goals

LPG Liquidified Petroleum Gas

LHV Lower Heating Value (i.e. Net Calorific Value)

MoA Ministry of Agriculture

MoI Ministry of Industry

MoME Ministry of Mines and Energy

MoWE Ministry of Water and Energy


Azemeraw Tadesse Page X

NBPCO National Biogas Program Coordination Office

NGOs Nongovernmental Organizations

ORDA Organization for Rehabilitation and Development in Amhara

SEI Stockholm Environment Institute

SNNP Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples

SNV Stichting Nederlandse Vrijwilligers

SSA sub-Saharan Africa

toe ton of oil equivalent

UEMOA West African Economic and Monetary Union

UNDP United Nations Development Program

UNEP United Nations Environment Program

USA United States of America

USD United States Dollar

WB World Bank

WHO World Health Organization

List of Conversion Factors

1 Megajoule (MJ) = 106 Joules

1 Gigajoule (GJ) = 109 Joules

1 Terajoule (TJ) = 1012 Joules

1 Petajoule (PJ) = 1015 Joules

1 Exajoule (EJ) = 1018 Joules

1 toe = 41.868 *109 Joules

1 ton = 1,000 Kilogram

1 Cubic Meter = 1,000 Liters

1 Gallon = 3.785 Liters


Azemeraw Tadesse Page 1

1 Chapter One: Introduction

1.1 Background Information

In recent years, due to growing concerns of environment protection, energy security and price of fossil

fuels, there is strong interest in renewable energy development such as hydro, wind, solar, geothermal and

bioenergy [7]. Bioenergy accounts for about 10% of the global primary energy supply [54]. Generally,

bioenergy can be defined as energy derived from the conversion of biomass where biomass may be used directly as fuel for

generation of heat and electricity, or processed into biofuels which includes liquid and gaseous fuels. Biomass is any

decomposing organic matter derived from plants or animals available on a renewable basis [77]. Biomass includes wood,

charcoal, forest residues, agricultural residues, energy crops, animal dung as well as municipal organic

wastes [58]; and it is the oldest fuel used by mankind and has been its main source of energy for cooking

[55]. Traditional use of biomass accounts for the largest share of bioenergy [19]; and it includes the use

of wood, charcoal, agricultural residues and animal dung for cooking, heating and lighting especially in

developing countries [55]. Such biomass resources are often used unsustainably, inefficiently and under

poorly ventilated space causing indoor air pollution [58]. However, there has been a rapid increase in

modern use of biomass resources in response to policies and strategies aimed at improving energy

security and mitigating climate change. In many countries, the promotion of modern use of biomass is

also considered as a possible driver of rural development with the potential to improve energy access,

increase employment, and stimulate positive development in agriculture and forestry. Modern use of

biomass primarily includes production of biofuels, heat and power using advanced conversion

technologies. According to IEA world energy outlook (2012), the primary bioenergy demand in 2010 was

1,277 Mtoe of which, the share of traditional use of biomass was 58%; and the share primary bioenergy

used for power generation was 9%. The share of transport and industrial sectors was 15% and 5%

respectively [54].

The traditional use of biomass could continue as an important source of energy in many parts of the

world, and represents the largest contribution to the energy supply of many rural communities across the

developing world [58]. In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), the largest portion of their primary energy supply is

from biomass; and wood is the dominant source of energy for households. About 81% of households

relied on wood to fulfill their energy demand [32]. The unsustainable and inefficient use of wood for

cooking using traditional cooking stoves leads the SSA to massive deforestation and forest degradation.

In addition, indoor air pollution from incomplete combustion has potential health problem to women

and children.

Ethiopia is the third large and second most populous country in the SSA [7]. It is landlocked and has an

area of 1.1 million square kilometers of which, agricultural area, arable land and forest area accounted for

32%, 13% and 11% respectively in 2011 [73]. Its population growing rapidly with average annual growth

rate of 2.4%; and it was 84.7 million in 2011. The economy the country is growing fast for the last decade

with average annual growth rate of 8.4%; and its GDP (current USD) was 30.25 billion in 2011 [92].



Figure 1.1: Location of Ethiopia

The country has large potential of hydro, geothermal, wind solar and bioenergy. However, its energy is

highly dominated by traditional use of biomass such as wood, charcoal, agricultural residues and animal

dung. According to IEA country’s statistics database (2009), biomass accounted for around 92% of the

total energy consumption of the country in 2009 [76]. Most of the biomass has been consumed by

households for cooking using traditional cooking stoves. The average share of biomass consumption for

the last ten years (i.e. from 1999/00 to 2009/10) was 86.42% by rural households, 8.18% by urban

households, 0.46% by commercial and public institutions, and 4.93% by others [7]. Wood is the most

common cooking fuel by both rural and urban households. From CSA welfare survey (2011), around

63% of the urban households used wood for cooking in 2011; and about 91% of the rural households

used wood as cooking fuel (see annex) [41].

Electricity accounted for 1% of the energy consumption of the country in 2009. Hydro is the main source

of electricity generation, about 87% of the country’s electricity has been generated from hydro [76]. The

country has one of the lowest electricity access rates in the world. According to IEA world energy

outlook (2012) preview on measuring progress towards energy for all report, 65 million people (i.e. 78%

of the total population) were without access to electricity in 2010; and at the same time, the number of

people without electricity in SSA was 589 million (i.e. 68% of the total population in SSA) [56]. Currently,

the country is establishing several electricity generation and transmission expansion projects to increase

the access.

The country spend huge amount of foreign currency to import petroleum products and other fossil fuels.

It spent about 1.8 billion USD (i.e. about 6% of the GDP) to import 145,276 tons of gasoline and

1,069,350 tons of diesel respectively in 2011 alone. To facilitate production of biofuels from indigenous

resources and substitute imported petroleum, biofuels development and utilization strategy has been

formulated by the Ministry of Mines and Energy in 2007 [17]. Following this strategy, E5 (i.e. 5%



bioethanol blend with gasoline) was introduced since 2008 and increased to E10 since 2011. The current

production capacity of bioethanol is 20.5 million liters from Fincha and Methara Sugar Factories; and the

plan is to increase the capacity to 182 million liters by 2015 [69]. The country is also doing several

activities like land allocation to the investors for biodiesel feedstock plantation. The suitable land for

biodiesel feedstock cultivation estimated at 23.3 million hectares suitable [45].

The country has implemented ambitious growth and transformation plan (GTP) since 2011 to reach the

target of middle status economy by 2025 while developing green economy. And, to shift from the current

conventional economy development to green economy, the climate resilient and green economy strategy

has been implemented as a part of its GTP. One of the main issues of this strategy is to improve energy

efficiency and security in the household, transport and industry sectors [44]. Moreover, the country has

energy policy to enhance energy development, energy convservation and efficiency, and energy

institutilization [53]; and environmental policy to promote sustainable social, economic and environment

development to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future

generations to meet their own needs. Generally, the availability of policies, strategies, plans, governmental

organizations and developmental partners are some of the factors to support sustainable development in

the country.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

The heavy dependence on traditional use of biomass especially wood causes high depletion of forest

resources in Ethiopia [2]. Accelerated soil erosion and land degradation are severe problems in the

country [1]. Deforestation for fuel wood is one of the main causes of soil erosion and land degradation.

Moreover, it is one of the main sources of GHG emissions. For instance, from 150 million tons of CO2e

emission of the country in 2010, about 17% of the total emission was due to deforestation for fuel wood

[44]. Due to very low energy efficiency, only a very small portion of biomass (i.e. less than 10%)

converted into useful energy. In other words, the energy from traditional use of biomass is ‘less useful

more waste energy (LUMWE)’. The use of traditional cooking technology is the main cause for the

inefficient and unsustainable utilization of biomass that leads to massive deforestation. Incomplete

combustion under poorly ventilated space causes indoor air pollution that has a potential health problem

especially to women and children [2]. According to WHO statistics (2009), indoor smoke from solid fuels

is responsible for 2.7% of the total burden of disease [60]. Moreover, women and children travel a long

distance frequently to collect the fuel wood and carry it on their back which leads to the loss of natural

posture of their back and serious pain in the long-term. In addition, women are sexually abused in the

forest while collecting fuel wood; and children spend more time for collecting wood than going to school

and learn. On the other hand, negative environmental impacts from poorly managed municipal solid

waste such as GHG emissions, creating bad odor, blocking sewerage system and decreasing the beauty of

the city are also serious problems in the country.

In addition to the above problems which are related to traditional use of biomass, there is a wide range of

fossil fuels demand in the country for different sectors such as transport, industry, household and others

which is fully covered by importing. This leads to a significant expenditure from the country’s budget.

Solving all the problems needs a shift from existing energy practices of the country to efficient and

modern; and it is one of the main tasks of the government and developmental partners.



1.3 Objective of the Study

The main objective of the study is to investigate the long-term shifts in bioenergy use of Ethiopia from

demand to supply by formulating alternative scenarios, and to evaluate expected economical, social and

environmental implications of the shifts. To achieve the main objectives, the specific objectives are:

� To study the shifts in household energy from traditional use of biomass to efficient and modern by

improving energy efficiency and evaluate the resulting outcomes

� To evaluate the transport sector energy shifts by deploying biofuels and assess the corresponding

implications

� To analyze the shifts in cement industries energy by introducing agricultural residues as a fuel for

cement production and evaluate the associated results

� To assess the potential of bagasse and municipal solid waste by handling them for electricity

generation in the long-term

Note that, the above specific objectives are chosen because they represent the main types of shifts to

modern use of bioenergy resources that are achievable in the near to medium-term. On the other hand,

they are the potential intervention areas for the shifts in bioenergy use of the country.

1.4 Significance of the Study

The output of the study can be used by researchers and students as input for further research, by experts

and officials to formulate energy policies and strategies. On the other hand, since it provides important

information about future trend of bioenergy demand, it can also be used by investors and small scale

enterprises who are interested in bioenergy market.

1.5 Scope of the Study

This study is the part of the project being conducted by Stockholm Environment Institute on future

transitions in bioenergy use and expected changes in terms of energy access and socio-economic and

environmental impacts in selected regions of SSA. It models and analyzes the long-term shifts in

bioenergy use of Ethiopia by formulating alternative scenarios in the LEAP. It covers demand to

transformation to primary resources requirement analysis and its implication in term GHG emission

saving, cooking fuel saving, foreign currency saving and land use. For this purpose, household, transport,

industry and electricity generation are identified in the modeling of the demand. The bioenergy demand

of agriculture and service sectors is insignificant and do not represent major opportunities for shifting to

modern use of bioenergy, and thus is not considered in the demand analysis. In the household sector, the

largest amount of bioenergy resources is consumed by cooking; and its use for heating and lighting is

insignificant and neglected from the analysis. The blending of bioethanol with gasoline and biodiesel with

diesel has been modeled and analyzed. The cement industries have been chosen for the analysis since they

are most energy intensive in the country. Electricity generation from cogeneration of bagasse and

incineration of municipal solid waste is among those considered in the demand analysis. In the

transformation analysis, production of bioethanol, biodiesel, biogas and charcoal has been modeled and

analyzed by selecting the conversion technologies and the feedstock used to produce them. However,

marketing, investment cost, and operation and maintenance costs associated to production of the above

fuels are not analyzed because of unavailable data. The scope of the LEAP model and analysis of the

study is presented below (see figure 1.2).



Figure 1.2: Scope/boundary of the study

1.6 Research Methodology

Modeling and analysis of future energy system of any country requires significant amount of data. Hence,

efforts have been garnered to gather as much data as possible so that the conclusions finally drawn from

the study have practical significance. In this endeavor, the data have been collected from both primary

and secondary sources. The primary data have been collected by dispatching questionnaires, and

interviewing officials and experts during the fieldwork which was conducted from April 23 to May 24,

2013. During the fieldwork, various stakeholders such as MoWE, EEPCo, EPSE, EPA, ESCo, MoA,

MoI, CSA and GIZ have been surveyed. In addition, the fieldwork has included a visit to small scale

enterprises that manufacture cooking stoves and participation in an international conference in ‘Science

and Technology towards the Development of East Africa’ organized by Institute of Technology, Bahir

Dar University in 17 and 18 May, 2013. In general, the fieldwork was important to get the required data

for the analysis and to support scenarios formulation. On the other hand, the secondary data have been

collected from related publications, various documents of the stakeholders, and various related websites.

Three scenarios namely, ‘baseline’, ‘moderate shift’ and ‘high shift’ scenarios are formulated. The baseline

scenario assumes the existing energy practices of Ethiopia would undergo no significant change in the

future. Whereas, the two alternative scenarios consider future shifts in the bioenergy use of the country

that include energy efficiency improvement in the household sector, biofuels deployment in the transport

sector, the introduction of agricultural residues as a fuel for cement production as well as bagasse and

municipal solid waste for electricity generation. The moderate shift scenario is formulated based on the

most likely achievable parameters taking into consideration the possible constraints such as financial,



technical, technological and management inefficiency that hinder implementation process of the shifts.

On the other hand, the high shift scenario is formulated based on optimistic parameters considering if

there would no significant constraints that could affect the implementation process.

Mean a while, the following bioenergy resources utilization strategy has been formulated to model and

analyze the scenarios using LEAP (see table 1.1).

Table 1.1: Bioenergy resources utilization strategy

Bioenergy

Resource Technology/Fuel

Substituted

Technology/Fuel Status

Wood Improved Wood Stove Traditional Wood

Stove Started but insignificant

Charcoal Improved Charcoal

Stove

Traditional Charcoal

Stove Started but insignificant

Agricultural

Residues Agricultural Residues

Fossil Fuels

Consumption in

Cement Industries

Not yet started however,

it is promoted in the

green economy strategy

of the country.

Bioethanol

Bioethanol Gasoline Started with E5 in 2008

and E10 since 2011

Bioethanol Stoves

Traditional Wood and

Charcoal Stoves, and

Kerosene Stoves

Started but insignificant

Biodiesel Biodiesel Diesel Not yet started

Biogas Biogas Stoves

Traditional Wood and

Charcoal Stoves, and

LPG Stoves

Started but insignificant

Bagasse Cogeneration

No substitution but to

generate excess

electricity to the

national grid

So far, sugar industries

produce both heat and

power from

cogeneration of bagasse

for self-consumption.

Municipal Solid

Waste Incineration

No substitution but to

generate electricity

Not started however,

there is a project in

memorandum phase to

build waste to energy

plant at ‘Rappi’, Addis

Ababa; and expansion of

waste to energy plants

will continue to other

major cities of the

country.

Based on the above bioenergy resources utilization strategy, the demand-resource tree is formulated to

build the modeling and analysis framework in the LEAP (see figure 1.3).



Household

Industry

Transport

Electricity

Generation

Traditional Wood Stove

Improved Wood Stove

Improved Charcoal Stove

Traditional Charcoal Stove

Electric Stove

Kerosene Stove

LPG Stove

Bioethanol Stove

Biogas Stove

Wood

Wood

Charcoal

Charcoal

Electricity

Kerosene

LPG

Bioethanol

Biogas

Cement KilnFossil Fuels and

Agricultural Residues

Otto IC Engine

Diesel IC Engine

Gasoline, Bioethanol

Diesel, Biodiesel

Cogeneration Bagasse

Incineration MSW

Sector Technology Fuel

De

ma

nd

Re

so

ur

ce

Figure 1.3: Demand-resource tree

Finally, based on the results and discussion of the analysis, this study is finalized with concluding remarks

and recommendations on the future energy direction of the country.

1.7 Organization of the Study

The thesis is organized by nine chapters. The first chapter introduces the background, statement of the

problem, objective, scope and methodology of the study. The second chapter states an overview of global

bioenergy. The Ethiopian energy outlook is briefly described in chapter three. Chapter four discusses in

detail the bioenergy resources of Ethiopia. The policy background, green economy strategy and

stakeholders of Ethiopian energy system are discussed in chapter five. Chapter six explains the process of

the LEAP modeling and analysis of the long-term shifts by justifying the different data inputs and

parameters/targets established for the scenarios. The results of the analysis are expressed in chapter

seven. Chapter eight presents the discussion on the results and concluding remarks. The final chapter

illustrates the recommendation and future work of the study (see figure 1.4).



Chapter One

(Introduction)

Chapter Two

(Overview of Global Bioenergy)

Chapter Six

(Modeling and Analysis)

Chapter Seven

(Results)

Chapter Three

(Ethiopian Energy Outlook)

Chapter Nine

(Recommendation and Future Research)

Chapter Eight

(Discussion and Conclusion)

Chapter Four

(Bioenergy Resources of Ethiopia)

Chapter Five

(Policy Background and Stakeholders)

Figure 1.4: Schematic diagram for organization of the study



2 Chapter Two: Overview of Global Bioenergy

In order to establish a conceptual framework of the study, it is important to review related issues. The

next four chapters (i.e. from chapter two to five) emphasize topics which are related to the study.

2.1 Global Energy Balance

Global energy balance is dominated by fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas and coals; and fossil fuels will

remain the principal sources of global energy demand, though renewable sources grow rapidly. The share

of fossil fuels in the global primary energy demand mix is expected to fall from 81% in 2010 to 75% by

2035 under new policies scenario of IEA world energy outlook (2012). The global primary energy

demand was increased from 10,102 Mtoe in 2000 to 12,730 Mtoe from which, fossil fuels accounted for

80% and 81% in 2010 and 2010 respectively. Bioenergy accounted for 10.17% and 10.03% in 2000 and

2010 respectively (see table 2.1 and figure 2.1). The primary energy demand of Africa was also increased

from 395 Mtoe to 624 Mtoe. The different scenarios analysis of IEA world energy outlook (2012)

indicates that primary energy demand will increase in the future [54].

Table 2.1: Global primary energy demand in 2000 and 2010 (Source: [54])

Global Primary Energy Demand (Mtoe)

Resource 2000 2000 2010 2010

Coal 2,378 23.5% 3,474 27.3%

Oil 3,659 36.2% 4,,113 32.3%

Natural Gas 2,073 20.5% 2,740 21.5%

Nuclear 679 6.7% 719 5.6%

Hydro 226 2.2% 295 2.3%

Bioenergy 1,027 10.2% 1,277 10.0%

Other Renewables 60 0.6% 112 0.9%

Total 10,102 100% 12,730 100%

Figure 2.1: Share of global primary energy supply mix in 2000 and 2010 (Source: [54])

The global primary bioenergy demand will also increase from 1,277 Mtoe in 2010 to 1,881 Mtoe in 2035

under new policies scenario of IEA world energy outlook (2012). The industrial sector was the largest



consumer of bioenergy in 2010 about 192 Mtoe and will increase to over 300 Mtoe by 2035. However,

the power sector is expected to have a larger share of bioenergy demand by 2035 which is about 414

Mtoe. Bioenergy consumption in the transport sector will increase by about 225% from 2010 to 2035,

reaching around 207 Mtoe by 2035 from 64 in 2010. The traditional use of biomass declines over time as

access to modern fuels increase and it will decline from 753 in 2010 to 696 Mtoe by 2035 (see figure 2.2)

[54].

Figure 2.2: Share of global primary bioenergy supply mix in 2010 and by 2035 (Source: [54])

2.2 Biomass Conversion Processes

The use of modern biomass primarily involves heat and power production from wood, agricultural

residues, municipal organic waste and the like; anaerobic digestion of organic wastes to produce biogas;

and production of bioethanol and biodiesel from potential biofuels feedstocks. There are different

technologies which are used to convert biomass into electricity, heat, biofuels and other products; and

these technologies have been continuously developed into increasingly sophisticated processes. The

biomass conversion processes are generally categorized into thermochemical, biochemical and

physiochemical conversion processes (see figure 2.3) [28].



Figure 2.3: Biomass conversion processes and technologies (Source: [28])

2.3 Bioethanol Production

Bioethanol is seen as a good alternative fuel because the feedstock can be grown renewably and in most

climates around the world. Bioethanol is produced from first generation and second generation feedstock.

The amount of bioethanol production from first generation feedstock is large than that of second

generation feedstock. Some of the first generation feedstock are wheat, corn, barley, rye, sugarcane and

sugar beet and sweet sorghum. Whereas, eucalyptus tree, miscanthus, hemp and giant reed are some of

second generation feedstock used for bioethanol production (see figure 2.4) [51]. Sugarcane is mainly

used for bioethanol production in Brazil, India and Africa whereas corn and wheat are mostly used in

USA and Europe respectively.

Figure 2.4: Feedstock used to produce bioethanol (Source: [51])



The global bioethanol production was about 86,691.7 million liters in 2010 out of which, North and

Central America accounted for the highest share about 60% followed by South America. The share of

bioethanol production of Africa was the least from the world, less than 1% (see table 2.2) [81].

Fragmented infrastructure development, financial and technical constraints are causing slow growth in

biofuel development of Africa. However, the long-term biofuel development potential could be strong if

the right economic environment is created.

Table 2.2: Global bioethanol production in 2010 (Source: [81])

Global Bioethanol Production in 2010

Region Production (million liter) Share (%)

North and Central America 51,934 59.9%

Europe 4576.1 5.3%

South America 26,956.8 31.1%

Asia 2975 3.4%

Oceania 249.8 0.3%

Africa 166.5 0.2%

Total 86,691.7 100%

United States was the top bioethanol producer in 2010 accounting for about 58% of the global bioethanol

production. Brazil and Europe were the second and third bioethanol producing countries/regions

accounting for about 29% and 5% of the global bioethanol production respectively [81].

The typical first generation bioethanol production process flow diagram from sugarcane is shown below

(see figure 2.5)[21].

Sugarcane

Cleaning

Extraction of

Sugar

Juice Treatment

Juice

Concentration

Fermentation

Yeast Treatment

Distillation and

Rectification

Absorption

Sand, Dirt,

Metals

Sand, Fibers,

Impurities

Bagasse

Second Grade

Bioethanol

CO2

Hydrous

BioethanolDehydration

Anhydrous

Bioethanol

Centrifugation

Figure 2.5: Bioethanol production process flow diagram from sugarcane (Source: [21])



The typical second generation bioethanol production process flow diagram from cellulosic biomass is

presented below (see figure 2.6).

Figure 2.6: Bioethanol production process flow diagram from cellulosic biomass (Source: [82])

2.4 Biodiesel Production

Biodiesel is made by a chemical process called transesterification in which the glycerol is separated from

the fat or vegetable oil using methanol or ethanol. The products of transesterification process are methyl

esters (i.e. the chemical name for biodiesel) and glycerol which is used for making soaps and other

products [88]. Jatropha, palm, coconut, canola, corn, cottonseed, soybean, flaxseed, peanut, sunflower,

rapeseed, castor and algae are some of the feedstock used to produce biodiesel (see figure 2.7) [59].

Biodiesel Feedstock

First Generation Second Generation

Jatropha

Cottonseed

Coconut

Canola

Palm

Rapeseed

Soybean

Peanut

Castor

Sunflower

Algae

Flaxseed

Figure 2.7: Feedstock used to produce biodiesel (Source: [59])



The global production of biodiesel was about 21,390.9 million liters from which about 80% was produced

by the following top ten world biodiesel producing countries (see table 2.3).

Table 2.3: Top biodiesel producing countries in 2010 (Source: [63])

Top Biodiesel Producing Countries in 2011

Country Production (million liter)

United States 3,183.2

Germany 3,160.5

Argentina 2,759.3

Brazil 2,641.9

France 1,589.7

Indonesia 1,362.6

Spain 711.6

Italy 590.5

Thailand 590.5

Netherlands 442.8

The typical biodiesel production process flow diagram is presented below (see figure 2.8).

Figure 2.8: Biodiesel production process flow diagram (Source: [25])

Both first and second generation biofuels has advantages and disadvantages. The primary advantage of

first generation biofuels is the availability of matured technologies for biofuels production and possibility

of large scale production. The disadvantages include emissions produced in growing and refining the

feedstock, land use concerns, effect on food price and supply, and only limited crops can be used in

biofuels production. In case of second generation biofuels, a larger variety of non-food feedstock can be

used; the energy input for agriculture and feedstock production could be significantly reduced. However,

the conversion technologies are not matured for second generation biofuels production [29].

2.5 Biogas Production

Biogas is produced by anaerobic digestion of animal dung, municipal waste, toilet waste and waste water

treatment sludge. Anaerobic digestion is a natural process whereby bacteria existing in oxygen free

environments to decompose organic matter using anaerobic digesters which are designed to accomplish



the decomposition. Anaerobic digestion of animal dung for production of biogas is a widely used method

especially in developing countries. In developing countries there are several digesters used to produce

biogas, the most familiar one is the fixed dome digester, in addition the floating dome digester and bag

digester are found in many developing countries (see figure 2.9) [18].

A fixed dome digester is a closed dome shaped digester which is originated from China. In this digester,

the organic waste is fed to the digester then the methanogenic bacteria digest the organic waste and

produce biogas and slurry (digested waste); and the gas is captured in the gasholder and the slurry is

displaced in the compensating tank. The more gas is produced, the higher the level of slurry at the outlet

will be available which can be treated for further application like fertilizer. Floating dome digester is

mainly found in India. In this digester, the produced biogas is collected in a movable steel drum called the

gasholder. The steel drum is guided by a guide frame; and when the biogas is consumed the drum sinks.

The slurry is pushed out of the digester after the digestion. A bag digester is a plastic or rubber bag

combining the gas holder and digester. In this digester, gas is collected in the upper part and organic

waste in the lower part; and the inlet and outlet are attached to the skin of the bag. The pressure of the

gas is adjustable by laying stones on the bag [18].

Figure 2.9: Fixed dome, floating dome and bag digesters

The typical biogas production process flow diagram is shown below (see figure 2.10).

Figure 2.10: Biogas production process flow diagram (Source: [36])



2.6 Charcoal Production

Charcoal is the world’s most significant fuel which is produced from wood and other bioenergy

resources. In addition to its use as a cooking fuel, it is also significantly used in the production of pig iron

as case of Brazil [31]. The global production of wood charcoal from wood was estimated at 47 million

metric tons in 2009 and increased by 9% compared to 2004 (i.e. about 43 million metric tons). The

growth of charcoal is being strongly influenced by Africa. Africa is the region with the highest charcoal

production, accounted for 63% of global charcoal production in 2009 (see table 2.4). Brazil was the

highest charcoal producing country in 2009 out of the top ten charcoal producing countries of the world;

and seven of them are found in Africa [35].

Table 2.4: Global charcoal production in 2009 (Source: [35])

Global Charcoal Production (million ton)

Region Production Share (%)

Africa 29.4 62.6%

Asia 7.4 15.7%

Europe 0.5 1.1%

Latin America and Caribbean 8.8 18.7%

Northern America 0.9 1.9%

Oceania 0.0 0.0%

World 47 100%

Pyrolysis is a thermochemical process used to produce charcoal in kilns or retorts. Traditionally, charcoal

is still made in earth mound kilns in developing countries as well as in some emerging economies such as

Brazil. Over the past century the kilning technology of producing charcoal has been improved. Some

examples of such improved kilning techniques are Missouri kilns, Argentine kilns, and Brazilian Beehive

kilns (see figure 2.11). Beehive kilns can be found in large industrial application for example, for making

charcoal for the steel industry in Brazil and to manufacture metallurgic charcoal in USA. Charcoal

production using kilning method is a strong emitter of GHG due especially to un-burnt methane and

other carbon compounds [22].

Figure 2.11: Traditional earth mound kiln and beehive kiln

Most modern industrial charcoal producers use retorts method for charcoal production (see figure 2.12).

In this method, the pyrolysis vapors are separated from the biomass feed before being combusted. Only

the vapors are used to provide the energy sustaining the process. If the feed material is too wet additional



fuels are used for start-up purpose. Direct contact of the biomass feed with oxygen from air is prevented.

In this manner, it is ensured that the entire biomass feed available for the conversion is changed to

charcoal. Charcoal production yield using this method can be very high if carried out properly [22].

Figure 2.12: Typical retorting kiln

2.7 Electricity Generation

As it was discussed above, the share of primary bioenergy supply used for power generation was 9% in

2010 and will reach to 22% by 2035 according new scenario of IEA world energy outlook (2012).

Electricity from bioenergy resources can be produced using steam cycle, gas cycle and combined cycle.

Electricity can be produced by direct combustion of wood, bagasse and agricultural residues, and

incineration of municipal solid wastes in the steam cycle by producing steam using steam boiler for

rotating the steam turbine then mechanical power is converted to electrical power using generator

coupled with the steam turbine. The average electrical efficiency of steam cycle is about 33%, and 25%

for incineration of municipal solid waste. Electricity can also be generating from syngas produced by

gasification of wood, agricultural residues and bagasse in the gas cycle or combined cycle. Biogas or

landfill gas can also be used for electricity generation by replacing natural gas. The average electrical

efficiency of gas and combined cycles is about 30% and 50% respectively. In most cases, such power

plants are used for the production combined heat and power (CHP) at the same time so that the overall

efficiency is improved.



3 Chapter Three: Ethiopian Energy Outlook

3.1 Energy Balance of Ethiopia

Ethiopia has large potential of hydro, wind, geothermal, wind, solar and biomass as indigenous energy

resource. Moreover, the country imports oil products and other fossil fuels to satisfy its energy demand.

In addition to the above renewable energy sources, the country has proved non-renewable resource like

coal and natural gas. The energy balance of country is dominated by traditional use of biomass mainly

wood, charcoal, animal dung and agricultural residues. Electricity, oil products and biofuels also have

small contribution to the energy balance. Electricity production in the country begins during late 1890s

when King Menelik II acquired the first generator to light his palace [9]. Today electricity is produced

from hydro, geothermal, wind and diesel.

By using the IEA (2009) statistics of the country, the energy balance of Ethiopia is briefly described

below.

3.1.1 Primary Energy Supply

The primary energy supply of Ethiopia is from oil products, hydro, biomass and geothermal of which,

only oil products have been imported. From 32,678 ktoe of primary energy supply in 2009, the share of

biomass was 91.96%; and oil products, hydro and geothermal accounted for 7.05%, 0.94% and 0.04%

respectively (see figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1: Share of total primary energy supply of Ethiopia in 2009 (Source: [76])

3.1.2 Electricity Production

As it is mentioned above, electricity is produced from hydro, geothermal, wind and diesel in the country.

The annual electricity production of Ethiopia in 2009 was 4,106 GWh of which, 87.26% was produced

from hydro; and 12.37% and 0.37% was from oil (i.e. diesel) and geothermal respectively (see figure 3.2).



Figure 3.2: Share of electricity generation of Ethiopia in 2009 (Source: [76])

3.1.3 Energy Consumption

The energy consumption of Ethiopia was 30,947 ktoe in 2009 from which, biomass accounting for

91.67%; and 7.38% and 0.94% was fulfilled by oil products and electricity (see figure 3.3). The transport

sector accounted for 60.42% of the total oil products energy consumption followed by industry (24.9%),

residential (13.57%) and non-energy use (1.62%). From the total biomass energy consumption, 99.27%

was by residential, and 0.73% by commercial and public services. Industries accounted for 38.01% of the

total electricity consumption followed by commercial and public services (23.63%) and residential

(13.57%).

Figure 3.3: Share of energy consumption of Ethiopia in 2009 (Source: [76])

In general, the energy profile of Ethiopia can broadly be defined by biomass energy specifically traditional

use of biomass for cooking. Most of the biomass energy is used for cooking in the household sector.



Being dependent on traditional use of biomass, the energy utilization of the country is inefficient and

unsustainable. The largest portion of biomass energy is lost as waste energy to the environment due to the

use of very low energy efficiency traditional cooking technology; consequently, only a very small portion

of it becomes useful energy (see figure 3.4).

Figure 3.4: Schematic energy profile diagram of Ethiopia

Note that, the energy from bioethanol in the transport sector is very small when compared to the above

and considered as insignificant at the moment.

3.2 Energy Trends of Ethiopia

In general, the energy consumption of Ethiopia has shown an increasing trend; and the growth is mainly

driven by population and GDP growth of the country. By using United States EIA-International Energy

statistics, the trends of petroleum consumption, hydroelectricity generation, and non-hydro electricity

generation are discussed below.

3.2.1 Trend of Petroleum Consumption

Petroleum consumption had shown increasing trend from 2000 to 2008 then decreased from 2008 to

2010 due to rise in price (i.e. subsidy of petroleum has been removed since 2008); and after 2010 the

trend increased which is driven by economy growth (see figure 3.5).



Figure 3.5: Trend of petroleum consumption of Ethiopia (‘000 Barrels) (Source: [87])

3.2.2 Trend of Hydroelectricity Generation

Generation of hydroelectricity has been grown from time to time; and the country has been established

several hydroelectric projects (see figure 3.6).

Figure 3.6: Trend of hydroelectricity generation of Ethiopia (TWh) (Source: [87])

3.2.3 Trend of Non-Hydro Electricity Generation

Generation of electricity from geothermal (i.e. Aluto Langano pilot plant) had shown decreasing trend

from 2000 to 2002 then from 2002 to 2007 there is no electricity generation due to technical failure of the

plant; and after 2007, the pilot plant has started to generates electricity again (see figure 3.7).



Figure 3.7: Trend of non-hydro electricity generation of Ethiopia (TWh) (Source: [87])

3.3 Energy Resource of Ethiopia

As it is mentioned above, Ethiopia has both renewable and non-renewable energy resource. The

renewable energy sources includes hydro, geothermal, wind, solar and bioenergy; and the non-renewable

energy resources are coal and natural gas however, none of the non-renewable energy resources are

exploited sources so far.

3.3.1 Hydro

Ethiopia is endowed with a huge amount of water potential. Preliminary studies and professional

estimates indicate that the country has an annual surface runoff close to 122 billion cubic meters of water

excluding ground water. From 80% to 90% of the country’s water resources is found in the four river

basins namely, Abay (Blue Nile), Tekeze, Baro Akobo, and Omo Gibe in the west and south-western part

of the country whereas only 10% to 20% of the water resources available in the east and central river

basins [78]. The water resource of the country is used in many different ways including electricity

generation, irrigation, fishery, tourism, drinking, cleaning and other processes.

The hydro energy potential of Ethiopia is estimated to be 30 to 45 GW [43]. Currently, the country has

around 2 GW installed capacity from operational hydropower plants [68]. And this shows that only 4.4%

of the hydro energy potential has been exploited. The country is also undertaking several hydropower

projects which vary from feasibility study to construction phase. The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam

is under construction on the Blue Nile River in the Benishangul Gumuz Region which is about

750 kilometers away from capital city, Addis Ababa. The dam will be the largest hydroelectric plant in

Africa when completed with installed capacity of 6 GW and 15,128 GWh of annual electricity generation.

The reservoir of the dam will create 63 billion cubic meters which can be used for agriculture and fishing

[66]. The hydro power projects including Grand Ethiopian Renaissance when completed will boost the

country’s electricity generation with installed capacity of 19,524 MW and annual electricity generation of

81,843 GWh [3].



3.3.2 Geothermal

The geothermal potential of Ethiopia both thermal and electrical is estimated to be about 5 GW.

However, the geothermal resource suitable for electric power generation is about 700 MW. There is one

geothermal pilot plant called Aluto Langano with installed capacity of 7 MW which is 1% of the available

geothermal potential for electricity generation [43]. The country is committed to explore the available

potential by undertaking several projects in different geothermal sites. The geothermal projects are

projected to add up to 3,154 GWh of electricity by the end of 2018; and the total installed capacity will

reach to 457 MW [3].

3.3.3 Wind

The gross wind energy potential for power generation is about 169 GW and this potential can be raised to

350 GW if areas which are moderately suitable for wind power are also included to the gross potential. In

the past, wind energy application in Ethiopia has been limited to water pumping. However, currently

there is a definite plan to exploit wind for power production [43]. In this regard, the country has 81 MW

installed capacity from Adama I wind farm (51 MW) and Ashegoda wind farm (30 MW). The Ashegoda

wind farm will have installed capacity of 120 MW when fully completed. The wind power projects when

completed will also increase the country’s electricity generation with annual electricity generation of

2,409.7 GWh of electricity and installed capacity of 593 MW [3].

3.3.4 Solar Energy

Ethiopia receives 5.5 to 6.5 kWh/m2/day of solar radiation thus has a great potential for the use of solar

energy. Solar energy availability is fairly constant throughout the year in the lowland areas of the country

but varies substantially in the highlands. The theoretical potential of solar energy is about 500 MW

thermal/km2 and 100 MW electricity/km2. Solar energy application in the country consists of water

heating in major cities; and lighting and water pump powering in rural areas [43]. Solar energy is also used

in telecommunication applications of the country; and Ethiopia Telecommunications Corporation is the

major user of solar PV to power its remote telecom installations [65].

3.3.5 Bioenergy

The different bioenergy resources of Ethiopia have been discussed in detail in chapter four.

3.3.6 Fossil Fuels

Fossil fuel resources discovered in Ethiopia are coal, oil shale and natural gas. However, none of them

have been developed and utilized so far. The coal resource of the country is estimated about 260 million

tons distributed in 9 sites manly located in the northern, central and south-western part of the country.

The quality of this coal resource ranges from medium to low grade (bituminous to lignite). Better quality

coal deposits are located in the south-western high forest areas of the country where development of sites

will potentially have serious environmental consequences. Oil shale deposit is estimated at 112 million

tons. The country also has 4 tera cubic feet of natural gas deposit in the eastern part of the county [12].

3.4 Electricity Generation Targets of Ethiopia

As discussed above, electricity generation of the country is highly dominated by hydropower. The

abundance of the resource and its relatively low cost of electricity generation make hydropower the first



choice for expansion. The country has set a long-term energy production target which is dominated by

renewable energy resources as shown below (see table 3.1).

Table 3.1: Electricity generation targets of Ethiopia (Source: [46])

Type

2015 2030

MW GWh % MW GWh %

Thermal 79.2 563.6 1.42 79.2 563.6 0.57

Non-Renewable Total 79.2 563.6 1.42 79.2 563.6 0.57

Hydro 10,641.6 36,506 92.26 22,000.0 86,724.0 87.81

Wind 772.8 1,928.2 4.87 2,000.0 4,029.6 4.08

Geothermal 77.3 571.0 1.44 1,000.0 7,446.0 7.54

Renewable Total 11,491.7 39,005.2 98.58 25,000.0 98,199.6 99.43

Total 11,570.9 39,568.8 100 25,079.2 98,763.2 100

Note that, the country also considers 103.5 MW excess electricity generation target from bagasse by 2015

and 2030. However, this target does not consider the expansion of the sugar industries that will have a

potential of producing more excess electricity to the national grid.



4 Chapter Four: Bioenergy Resources of Ethiopia

In Ethiopia, energy demand has increased both in terms of aggregate amount and diversity of resources.

Wood, charcoal, agricultural residues and animal dung are the most common traditional bioenergy

resources which are primarily used for cooking by households and services.

4.1 Wood

Wood is the most important bioenergy resource in the household sector of Ethiopia. It is also used for

cooking food and drinks in restaurants, bakeries, local drink houses, and in institutions such as schools,

universities, hospitals, detention centers and military camps. Small and micro enterprises use wood to fire

brick and clay products [13]. In rural areas most of the wood demand is fulfilled by collecting whereas the

urban households fulfill most of their wood demand by purchasing. According to CSA welfare

monitoring survey (2011), about 87.2% of the rural households used collected wood and 3.6% purchased

wood. Whereas, 18.6% of the urban households consumed collected wood and about 44.7% purchased

wood [41].

The standing stock of woody biomass of the country is estimated at 1,150 million tons [12]. The amount

of wood used as cooking fuel in the country is far larger than the amount used for other purposes such as

construction, furniture and the like [11]. Demand for fuel wood is growing rapidly while its supply is

shrinking and increasing access distance which leads especially women and children to travel a long

distance for collecting it (see figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1: Fuel wood collection in Ethiopia

Deforestation for fuel wood is one of the largest sources of GHG emissions in Ethiopia. In 2010, about

17% of the country’s GHG emission is caused by deforestation for fuel wood [48].

4.2 Charcoal

In Ethiopia, charcoal is commercially produced from wood. Charcoal is used for cooking mainly by urban

households; however it is produced by rural households. Charcoal is produced in a very small scale which

is about 100 to 300 Kg per batch using the earth mound kiln. To produce 1 Kg of charcoal about 8 Kg of

wood is consumed which results a great deal of waste in this traditional process (i.e. earth mound kiln)

(see figure 4.2). Charcoal production earth mound kiln is still the dominant method despite some pilot

programs like producing briquetted charcoal from agricultural residues and bamboo residue to introduce



more efficient techniques using mobile and stationary kilns have been promoted. However, agricultural

residues conversion to charcoal should be promoted only where utilization of the residues as animal feed

or organic fertilizer is not viable [11].

Figure 4.2: Charcoal production in Ethiopia using traditional earth mound kiln

The demand for charcoal has grown faster because of increasing urbanization, increasing monetization of

charcoal and increasing competitiveness of charcoal with kerosene [11].

Figure 4.3: Charcoal ready for selling

4.3 Agricultural Residues

Scarcity of wood leads to greater use of agricultural residues and animal dung for cooking which could

otherwise have been used to enhance the nutrient status and texture of the soil and contribute positively

to agricultural production. For instance, agricultural residues from teff, wheat, maize and barley can be

left on the ground or burned in the field to recycle soil nutrients; and some parts can also used as animal

feed, building materials and cooking fuel. Agricultural residues are mostly used by the rural household for

cooking and baking, using very low efficiency cooking stoves. Agricultural residue supply is seasonal and

hence its use as fuel is also seasonal. Agricultural residues are seasonal therefore, collection and storage of

residues during the months of availability will be necessary; and alternatively different residues could be

sourced at different times of the year to fill the gap of scarcity [14].

In different parts of the country, various types of crops are cultivated as a result considerable amount of

crop residues is produced. Generally, for the use as fuel, crops with a higher residue-to-seed ratio provide

the largest amount of agricultural residues. However, it is often not socially, environmentally and



economically desirable to divert all types of agricultural residue for fuel. In the small scale farming

context, residues are generally better used for ecological, agricultural or construction purposes than for

fuel. However, in large commercial farms and in agro-industries a large proportion of the residues

available cannot be used on-site due to limited demand in the immediate vicinity. As a consequence, the

residue supply exceeding the local demand tends to be disposed of wastefully and harmfully by burning in

the field or at agro-industrial sites, or dumping into streams [14].

Agricultural and agro-industrial residues are bulky and have low energy density, and for these reasons can

not be transported far from production sites without some form of processing. Therefore, the residues

should be converted to relatively high quality and high energy density fuels to use in the household,

commercial and industrial sectors through a number of physical, biological and thermo-chemical

conversion processes. The typical agricultural residues densification process has to undergo a number of

stages including collection, storage, cleaning, drying, and size reduction. Depending on the types of

residue, each of the above stages will require a certain expenditure on equipment, materials and labor

[14]. Coffee husk, cotton stalk, sesame husk and chat stem are some of the commercially available

agricultural residues in the country.

4.4 Animal Dung

Animal dung in the form of dung cake is one of the most commonly traditional biomass used by

households for cooking. Animal dung is also for production of biogas. In some rural parts of the country

biogas production from Animal dung is started at household level. According to CSA (2009/10) survey,

the country’s livestock population is about 150 million (see table 4.1).

Table 4.1: Estimated annual animal dung production (Source: [11])

Annual Dry Weight Dung Production

Type Livestock (million) Dry Weight

(Kg/livestock/year)

Annual Production

(million ton)

Cattle 50.9 691 35.2

Sheep 26 77 2

Goat 22 88.3 1.9

Horse 2 552 1.1

Donkey 5.7 220 1.3

Mule 0.37 331 0.12

Camel 0.81 104 0.08

Poultry 42.1 4.8 0.2

Total 149.9 41.9

It is seen that about 42 million tons of dry weight dung is produced annually from the total livestock from

which, cattle (cows and oxen) are accounted for the highest share of dung production about 84% of the

annual total dung production.

4.5 Sugarcane

Ethiopia is endowed with suitable land, climate and immense water for sugarcane cultivation. The

identified land suitable for sugarcane plantation is about 700,000 hectares [26]; and currently, around

412,300 hectares of land is allocated for sugarcane cultivation (see annex 4). The average productivity of



sugarcane is about 105 to 145 tons per hectare; and there is an anticipation to reach 155 tons per hectare

[70]. Sugarcane is mainly used for the production of sugar in the country; and bioethanol is produced

from molasses, the byproduct of sugar industries. According the current practice of the sugar industries,

from 1 ton of crushed cane about 3% to 4% final molasses can be found; and 1 ton of molasses can

produce about 250 liters of bioethanol (i.e. 8.25 liters of bioethnol from 1 ton of crushed cane).

4.6 Bagasse

Bagasse is the byproduct of sugar industries; and from one ton of crushed cane about 27% to 33% of

bagasse can be produced. Bagasse used for steam production and electricity generation to fulfill the

requirement of the mills. The steam requirement of sugar mills per ton of crushed cane is between 0.4

and 0.55 tons; and the electricity requirement per ton of crushed cane varies between 15 and 35 KWh

depending on the efficiency of the mills. About 60% to 70% of bagasse produced is used for steam

production and electricity generation for the mills. The remaining quantity can be used as raw material for

paper production, other fibrous products or for excess electricity generation to contribute for the national

grid [5]. The Ethiopian sugar corporation has planned to contribute about 101 MW of electricity to the

national grid by the end of 2015 from Methara, Wonji Shoa and Tendaho sugar factories; and the amount

will be increased following the expansion of sugar industries [70].

4.7 Jatropha

Jatropha is one of the potential biodiesel feedstock which can be grown in arid climates (rainfall of 200

mm and mean temperature of 20 to 25oC) and marginal soils to produce 1000 kg of oil per hectare [26].

The productivity of jatropha ranges from 0.5 to 12 ton of seed per hectare. The productivity depends on

soil and rainfall for example; production of 5 tons of seed per hectare can be gained in good soils and

rainfall (900 to 1200 mm) [26]. The productivity is expected to drop to as low as 2 tons per hectare on

soils of marginal productivity and in an arid climate. Jatropha can be produced in degraded land and could

not be compute land for food production. In rural areas jatropha plant is used as a living fence to keep

away animals due to its toxicity. Jatropha cultivation could improve food productivity as its seed cake can

be used as fertilizer. An average farmer can easily produce 2000 Kg of jatropha by intercropping with

food crops and planting for the fence purpose. Therefore, the farmer could generate income by selling

the jatropha seed for biodiesel producers [45]. On average to produce 1 liter of biodiesel about 4 Kg of

seed is required for large-scale production [71].

4.8 Castor

Castor is widely distributed plant among different regions of Ethiopia. The castor plant grows in diverse

climates. Warm and dry climate (600 to 700 mm of rainfall and 1600 to 2600 meters above sea level

altitude) is suitable for its cultivation in addition to this climate condition, caster needs moist, deep and

drained soils for optimal yield. It can yield 260 to 1250 kg of oil per hectare [26], [45]. According to

FAOSTAT (2011), the productivity of caster seed in the country was about 1030 Kg per hectare in 2011

[72].

4.9 Palm

Unlike the above biodiesel feedstock, biodiesel production from palm is computing with food since palm

is also used for edible oil production. Ethiopia imports significant amount of palm oil for cooking. Over

the past 5 years, the country imported on average 160,000 tons of vegetable oil per year, primarily palm



oil [20]. Therefore, biodiesel production from palm than edible oil production might not be viable

considering the growing demand of edible oil. However, palm is considered as one of biodiesel feedstock

in the biofuel strategy of the country. It is mostly grown within 10 degrees north and south of the

Equator. It needs temperature of roughly 22 to 32oC and its rainfall demand is usually about 2000 mm. By

planting 150 palm plants per hectare, it is possible to get 5 to 30 tons palm seed per hectare. The

productivity of palm depends on harvesting time, 5 tons per ha in year 1 of harvest, and 20 tons per

hectare in year 4 harvest. In a mature plantation of 8 to 20 years of age, good management should

produce up to 30 tons per hectare [26], [45].

4.10 Municipal Solid Waste

Municipal solid waste commonly called “trash” or “garbage” includes wastes such as tires, furniture,

newspapers, plastic plates, plastic cups, milk cartons, plastic wrap, yard waste, food and the like. This

category of waste generally refers to common household waste, as well as office and retail wastes [50]. It

is one of the potential bioenergy resources of Ethiopia accumulated in cities in the form of landfill. The

amount of municipal solid waste depends on the number of population of the cities. The major cities of

the country are highly populated; for instance, the population of Addis Ababa was 2,960,000 in 2007.

Considering the daily average municipal solid waste generation rate at 0.25 Kg per capita per day, the daily

and annual solid waste output of Addis Ababa would be about 740 and 270,100 tons respectively. The

other major cities of the country such as Bahir Dar, Awassa, Mekelle, Adama, Diredawa and others have

produced significant amount of municipal solid waste [11]. Municipal solid waste can be used for electric

generation using incineration technology; and the landfill gas released from municipal solid waste can also

be used for electric generation using gas turbine and as cooking fuel. The country has not yet used its

municipal solid waste potential for such application. However, there is a project to establish waste to

energy plant at “Rappi”, Addis Ababa where largest landfill of municipal solid waste is found; and the

power plant will have electric generation capacity of 50 MW (i.e. about 360 GWh per year).

4.11 Bioethanol Production in Ethiopia

Considerable potential from the sugar factories exists for the production of ethanol, which will reach an

annual production level of 182 million liters by the end of first GTP that is 2015. Currently, bioethanol

blending with gasoline is limited within Addis Ababa and its surroundings which accounts for about 70%

of the total gasoline consumption. Production capacity and infrastructure limitation constrain the

expansion bioethanol blend in the regional areas of the country. According to the country’s biofuel

development and utilization strategy (2007), bioethanol is produced for the transport sector as well as for

cooking [45].

The amount of gasoline import which is predominantly used for transport. A potential replacement of

portion of the gasoline with domestically produced bioethanol will reduce import of gasoline and enhance

security of energy supply for transport sector. Blending of 5% bioethanol with gasoline was started in

2008 where the supplier of bioethanol is Fincha Sugar Factory which had annual production capacity of 8

million liters [10]. The blend has been increased to 10% since 2011. Currently, there are several sugar

industries which are under construction and the existing sugar industries are also expanding their capacity

(see annex 3). The ultimate goal of this expansion is to increase production capacity of sugar (i.e. 2.25

million tons by 2015, bioethanol (i.e. 182 million liters by 2015), and excess electricity generation for

contributing to the national grid (i.e. 101 MW by 2015) [69], [70]. The other main goal of the sugar

development projects is to create job opportunity for more than 162,000 peoples by 2015 [70]. Moreover,

there are private sugar industry projects like Hiber Sugar Share Company which will be expected to



increase the sugar and bioethanol production capacity of the country. Currently, there are three

bioethanol blending stations namely, Nile Petroleum, Oil Libya and National Oil Company. The trend of

bioethanol blend by each of the station is shown in annex 5.

4.12 Biodiesel Production in Ethiopia

Biodiesel production is not yet started in the country. However, the country has a considerable potential

for growing biodiesel feedstock that can reach a biodiesel production level of 5 to 10 million tons per

annum ; and 20% of this amount could be sufficient to fully replace the volume of diesel utilized in 2010

[10]. The country has suitable climate and soil for growing biodiesel feedstock Jatropha, castor and palm

are some of the feedstock used to produce biodiesel. It is estimated that there is 23.3 million hectares

suitable land for cultivation of biodiesel feedstock in the country [45]. For large scale biodiesel

production, around 300,000 hectares of land has been reserved to investors. Currently, about 26,000

hectares of land is covered with plantation but the production of biodiesel has not yet started. The lists of

investors for biodiesel development are shown in annex 6. The vegetable oils can be produced at small-

scale, but refining into biodiesel is at much bigger scale. However, the expansion of biodiesel feedstock

plantations should be managed not to cause competition with food production [10]. According to the

country’s biofuel development and utilization strategy (2007), biodiesel production is necessary for energy

security especially in the transport sector which will be achieved by blending of biodiesel with diesel so

that to decrease consumption of diesel as well as GHG emissions. Electricity generation and cooking fuel

are other applications of biodiesel. The byproduct of biodiesel production could also be used to produce

soaps and cosmetic products [45].

4.13 Biogas Production in Ethiopia

Historically, biogas technology was introduced in Ethiopia as early as 1979, when the first batch type

digester was constructed at Ambo Agricultural College [6], [16]. In the country there are various organic

wastes potential to biogas production some of them are animal dung, municipal solid waste, toilet waste

and waste water treatment waste. However, only animal dung and toilet wastes are being used for biogas

production. Biogas is produced from animal dung at household level in rural areas where as in urban

areas mostly biogas is produced from toilet waste institutional level. Biogas has a many advantage of

providing energy for cooking and lighting especially for rural households while at the same time providing

high quality organic fertilizer from the slurry produced after the biogas is extracted. Consequently, biogas

production increases agricultural productivity as it provides the necessary organic fertilizer. Biogas also

improves indoor climate as it reduces dramatically indoor air pollution and hence improves health [10].

Biogas production is promoted by SNV and MoWE. In the year 2007, the national biogas program was

initiated with a project target of constructing 14,000 biogas digesters in 5 years [10], [16], [83]. On

average, from 1 Kg of animal dung 38 liters of biogas be produced [16].

4.14 Cooking Stoves in Ethiopia

The three stones fire is the most common and dominant traditional cooking stove used in Ethiopia. It

uses wood, charcoal, animal dung and agricultural residues as a cooking fuel. There is also insignificant

number of other stoves used in the country. The country’s energy policy (1994) gives priority to the

household sector particularly to provision of sustainable energy for cooking by taking measures to achieve

gradual transition from traditional use of cooking fuels to efficient and modern [47]. Increasing the use of

efficient cooking stoves is one of the main issues of the green economy strategy of the country to

decrease forest degradation and GHG emissions; and for this purpose, the country has prepared national



cooking investment plan. MoWE, EPA, GIZ, SNV, UNDP are some of the organizations that support

the implementation of this plan. According to the cooking investment plan, the percentage distribution of

rural and urban households that will use improved wood stoves could reach to 80% and 5%, for biogas

stoves it could reach to 5% and 1%, and for electric stove 5% and 53% respectively. By using efficient

stoves, about 2.2 tons of CO2e per household can be saved annually from the carbon sink by reducing

deforestation and forest degradation [48]. The following are the cooking stoves available in the country.

4.14.1 Three Stones Fire

This traditional cooking stove is made up of three stones called ‘Sosit Gulicha’ in Amharic (i.e. national

language of Ethiopia). It used for cooking and baking with low thermal efficiency of between 5% and

10%. Thermal efficiency of 10% means that 90% of the cooking fuel energy does not reach the cooking

pot rather it is just lost to the surrounding in the form of waste energy [28] (see figure 4.4).

Figure 4.4: Baking with three stones fire

4.14.2 Traditional Charcoal Stove

The traditional charcoal stoves are mainly made up of clay and steel. Both the clay and steel made

traditional charcoal stoves have thermal efficiency of about 10% on average and used for cooking

especially by urban households.

4.14.3 Improved Wood Stove

There are different improved wood stoves promoted in Ethiopia some of them are ‘Mirt’ stove, ‘Tikikil’

stove and ‘Gonziye’ stove. Wood consumption and indoor air pollution reductions are the basic

advantage of improved wood stoves. The improved wood stoves are made locally by small scale

enterprises which creates job opportunity for many people. Mirt is made from sand mixed with cement

and still, Gonziye from clay and Tikikil from steel. The thermal efficiency of these stoves is between 18%

and 25%. Tikikil is only used for cooking whereas the other two stoves are used for both cooking and

baking [28]. The selling price of improved wood stoves is between 4 to 8 USD with an average service

life of 2.5 years (for cooking) and 4.5 years (for baking) [48].

4.14.4 Improved Charcoal Stove

Like improved wood stoves, the basic advantage of improved charcoal stove is reduced charcoal

consumption and indoor air pollution. ‘Lakech’ is the improved charcoal stove promoted in Ethiopia and

used by small number of households especially in urban areas. Lakech is made locally by small scale



enterprises from clay and steel. The thermal efficiency of improved charcoal stoves ranges from 20% to

30% [28].

4.14.5 Electric Stove

Electric stoves are mainly used by urban households of Ethiopia. They are used for baking and cooking.

Electric stoves which are used for baking called ‘electric mitads’; and they are made locally by small-scale

enterprises from steel, clay and cooper. On the other hand, the electric stoves which are used for cooking

manufactured locally and imported from abroad. The thermal efficiency of electric stoves is ranges from

70% to 80% which is the highest efficiency from all types of cooking stoves [28]. The selling price of

electric stoves ranges from 20 to 63 USD with an average service life of 7 years [48].

4.14.6 Kerosene Stove

Kerosene stoves are used for cooking mainly by urban households of Ethiopia. The share of households

that uses kerosene stoves is decreasing from time to time due to increasing price of kerosene. The use of

kerosene stoves is declining due to rising price of kerosene. They have thermal efficiency ranging from

30% to 40% [28].

4.14.7 LPG Stove

LPG stoves are used by households, institutions, hotels and restaurants for cooking. Like kerosene stoves,

the share of households that use LPG stoves is decreasing from time to time. The thermal efficiency of

stoves is relatively high and ranges from 60% to 70% [28]. The average selling price of LPG stoves is 107

USD with an average service life of 7 years [48].

4.14.8 Bioethanol Stove

Bioethanol stoves are also used for cooking; and the current use of bioethanol stoves in Ethiopia is

insignificant. They have average thermal efficiency of 55%. The selling price of imported single and

double burner bioethanol stoves is 530 (i.e. 34 USD at current exchange rate) and 1000 ETB (i.e. 54

USD) respectively with an average service life of 10 years. When they are locally produced, the selling

price would be reduced to 267 ETB (i.e. 14 USD) and 468 ETB (i.e. 25 USD) respectively [8].

4.14.9 Biogas Stove

Biogas stoves are also insignificantly used for cooking in Ethiopia. They are more suitable in rural

households since there is abundant animal dung for production of biogas at household level. The selling

price of biogas stoves including digester infrastructure is 912 USD with an average service life of 20 years

[48]. Currently, there are activities carried out to manufacture biogas stoves locally to reduce the price.



5 Chapter Five: Policy Background and Stakeholders

5.1 Energy Policy of Ethiopia

The first energy policy of Ethiopia has been formulated in 1994. The main goal of the energy policy is to

ensure the availability, accessibility, affordability, safety and reliability of energy to support accelerated and

sustainable social and economic development of the country and reduce poverty [12].

5.1.1 Objectives of Energy Policy

Basically the energy policy of the country has been formulated to achieve the following objectives [12],

[46]:

� To ensure security supply of energy to support development of the country

� To promote to indigenous energy resources for self sufficiency

� To increase the access of modern energy

� To promote efficient, cleaner and modern energy conversion technologies

� To increase energy conservation and efficiency

� To ensure environmental safety and sustainability of energy supply and utilization

� To improve energy sector governance and management systems

Promoting sustainable forest management, promoting diverse and efficient bioenergy production,

promoting carbon neutrality and climate resilience, ensuring supply for bioenergy, promoting biofuels

production, and improving access to bioenergy are specific objectives of the energy policy with respect to

bioenergy.

5.1.2 Main Issues of the Energy Policy

The main issues of the energy policy of the country are energy resource development, energy supply,

energy convservation and efficiency, comprehensive measures, and energy institutilization.

Energy Resource Development

This issue of the policy first focuses on sustainable development traditional fuels by afforestation and

reducing the impact of deforestation. Modern energy development is one of the main points under this

policy issue by prioritizing hydro power development, to develop geothermal and coal resources on the

basis of their economic profitability, and to initiate private companies to explore oil and natural gas by

providing incentives. The other point adressed under this policy issue is alternative energy resources

development which deals with the use of solar and geothermal energy for process heat and power

generation; and wind energy for water pumping and irrigation [15], [53].

Energy Supply

This issue focuses on households energy supply balancing between the supply and demand for household

fuels; transport energy supply policy by giving emphasis to the introduction of improved transport

technologies to reduce the use of fossil fuels in the transport sector; agriculture energy supply by

increasing the supply of modern energy sources to the agriculture sector; and industry energy supply by

ensuring compatibility with industrial development program of the country [15], [53].



Energy Conservation and Efficiency

It is devoted in increasing energy efficiency in the household sector by instituting conservation and energy

saving measures; improving the efficiency of industrial equipment to conserve and reduce energy

consumption; improving energy utilization and conservation in the transport sector in order to decrease

fossil fuels consumption; fulfilling energy demand of agriculture sector through locally produced modern

energy resources; adopting energy efficiency measures to eliminate energy waste in the commercial and

service sectors arising from inefficient devices; and implementing energy saving measures to decrease

waste of energy in the mining and construction sectors [15], [53].

Comprehensive Measures

To ensure the development of energy projects, energy generation, transmission are environmental

friendly; to create awareness about energy science and technology; to onduct research that helps for

increasing the reliability of energy supply, minimizing deforestation, controlling environmental pollution

and increasing the efficiency of energy conversion devices; to build national capacity in design,

development, operation, maintenance and consultancy in the electricity subsector; Gradually build local

manufacturing capability of electrical equipment and appliances; to create energy data base to assist in

energy planning, management and informed decision making; and to human development and energy

education [15], [53].

Energy Institutionalization

It focuses on establishing and supporting institutions which are responsible for policy formulation,

priority setting and coordination of all energy sector development activities [15], [53].

5.2 Environmental Policy of Ethiopia

The overall goal of the environmental policy of the country is to improve and enhance health and quality

of life of the people, and to promote sustainable social and economic development, and the environment

as a whole so as to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future

generations to meet their own needs [42]. The specific objectives of the environment policy are:

� To ensure that essential ecological processes and life support systems sustainability, biological

diversity preservation and renewable natural resources utilization

� To ensure the exploitation of non-renewable resources to use it in the future by minimizing negative

impacts on the environment

� To identify natural resources that are currently underutilized and find appropriate technologies to use

them properly

� To incorporate economic, social and environmental costs and benefits of natural resource

development into the planning, implementation and accounting processes

� To improve the environment of human settlements to satisfy physical, social, economic, cultural and

other needs on a sustainable basis

� To prevent the pollution of land, air and water in the most cost-effective way

� To conserve, develop, sustainably manage and support diverse cultural heritage of the country

� To ensure the empowerment and participation of the people and organizations at all levels in

environmental management activities



� To raise public awareness and promote understanding of the essential linkages between environment

and development

The environmental policies related to energy resources are presented as follows.

� To adopt an integrated process of planning and development among different sectors for energy

development

� To promote renewable energy development and reduce the use of fossil energy resources

� To make institutions and industries which consume large amounts of wood fuel establish their own

wood plantation

� To encourage private sectors for wood plantation in peri-urban areas

� To ensure energy development projects are environmentally feasible and viable

� To encourage private sectors to develop and market environmentally sound energy

� To ensure that each homestead grows enough trees to satisfy its wood requirements through

extension programs

� To develop and adapt modern energy sources and technologies to reduce traditional biomass use

5.3 Green Economy Strategy of Ethiopia

Ethiopia aims to achieve middle income status by 2025 while developing climate resilient green economy

(CRGE). However, the conventional development path of the country would result in an increase in

GHG emissions and unsustainable use of natural resources. To avoid such negative effects, the country

has developed a strategy to build a green economy in every economic sector since 2011. The green

economy plan is based on the following four pillars [44]:

1. Improving crop and livestock production practices for higher food security and farmer income while

reducing emissions

2. Protecting and establishing forests for their economic and ecosystem services

3. Expanding electricity generation from renewable sources for domestic and regional markets

4. Shifting to modern and energy efficient technologies in transport, industry and buildings.

The GHG emissions contribution of the country is very low on a global scale (i.e. 0.3% of the global

GHG emissions in 2010). The per capita emission of Ethiopia is less than 2 tons of CO2e which is

modest compared with 10 tons CO2e emissions per capita on average in the EU and 20 tons CO2e

emissions per capita in the US and Australia. However, the projected environmental impact of the

conventional economic development shows that GHG emissions in the country will be more than double

from 150 million tons of CO2e in 2010 to 400 million ton of CO2e by 2030. The country’s target for 2030

is to maintain the GHG emission to 2010 level (i.e. 150 million tons of CO2e by abating 250 million tons

of CO2e) [44].

From the 150 million tons of CO2e emissions in 2010, more than 85% came from the agricultural and

forestry sectors followed by transport, industry, power and buildings (see figure 5.1) [44].



Agriculture, 50%

Forestry, 37%

Transport, 3%

Industry, 3%

Power , 3% Buildings, 3%

Figure 5.1: Share of GHG emissions by sectors of Ethiopia in 2010 (Source: [44])

In agriculture, GHG emissions are caused by livestock and crop production. Ethiopia has about 150 million

livestock population. Livestock GHG emissions are mainly in the form of methane arising from

anaerobic digestion and nitrous oxide emissions arising from excretions. Livestock GHG emissions was

estimated at 65 million tons of CO2e. The cultivation of crops contributes about 10 million tons of CO2e

and 3 million tons of CO2e by using fertilizer and emitting N2O from crop residues respectively.

In forestry, GHG emissions are driven by human activities mainly deforestation for agricultural land, forest

degradation for wood fuel, and formal as well as informal logging. Forestry GHG emissions was about

almost 55 million tons of CO2e in 2010. Deforestation for agricultural land, forest degradation for fuel

wood and informal logging accounted for 50%, 46% and 4% share of the total forestry GHG emissions.

Minor amount of GHG emissions is contributed by transport, power, industry, and buildings, as stated

below.

In transport, about 75% of the GHG emissions come from road transport, particularly freight and

construction vehicles, and lesser amount from private passenger vehicles. Air transport contributes

around 23% of transport related emissions. GHG emissions from inland water transport are minimal

about 2%.

In power sector, the power sector GHG emissions come from the use of diesel generators of EEPCo. The

amount of power sector GHG emissions is estimated below 5 million tons of CO2e.

In industry, about 4 million tons of CO2e are from industry out of this amount, nearly 50% is from cement

industries followed by mining (32%), and textile and leather industry (17%). GHG emissions from steel,

engineering, chemical, pulp and paper, and food processing industries together account for around 2% of

the total industrial GHG emissions.

In buildings, the main drivers of GHG emissions of buildings are solid and liquid waste (3 million tons of

CO2e), and private power generators (2 million tons of CO2e).

5.4 Stakeholders of Ethiopian Energy System

There are governmental organizations, and developmental partners directly or indirectly play key role in

the energy sector of Ethiopia. In this part, the major stakeholders and their roles are described below.



5.4.1 Governmental Organizations

The following are the main governmental organizations responsible for energy system of Ethiopia with

respect to their assigned mandate from the government.

Ministry of Water and Energy (MoWE)

The Ministry of Water and Energy (MoWE) of Ethiopia is a federal organization established to

management of water and energy resources of Ethiopia which involves development, planning and

management of water and energy resources, development of polices, strategies and programs, develop

and implement water and energy sector laws and regulations, conduct study and research activities,

provide technical support to regional water and energy bureaus and offices and sign international

agreements [79].

Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation (EEPCo)

The Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation (EEPCo) is a state owned organization and it was established

for indefinite duration by regulation No. 18/1997 with a purpose of the corporation is to engage in the

business of producing, transmitting, distributing and selling electrical energy in accordance with

economic and social development policies and priorities of the government and to carry out any other

related activities that would enable it achieve its purpose [67].

Ethiopian Electricity Agency (EEA)

The Ethiopian Electricity Agency (EEA) functions under MoWE with a mandate to regulate the energy

sector mainly in terms of efficiency, conservation, safety, quality and the like based on rules, regulations,

directives and standards [80].

Ethiopian Rural Energy Development and Promotion Center (EREDPC)

The main function of EREDPC is to promote energy technologies which are efficient and

environmentally sound to bring sustainable development in the rural areas of Ethiopia. The center is also

undertaking the facilitation of energy development in rural areas through the provision of information;

and technical assistance loan financing to private sector, community organization, non-governmental and

governmental organizations in order to contribute to accelerated economic and social development [84].

National Biogas Program Coordination Office (NBPCO)

The National Biogas Program Coordination Office was established to facilitate the national and regional

government institutions for training, promotion and extension services; the private sector for the actual

construction of biogas digesters; NGOs for promotional activities; microfinance institutions for the

provision of micro-credit for biogas; and end users for sound operation [16].

Ethiopian Petroleum Suppliers Enterprise (EPSE)

The Ethiopian Petroleum Suppliers Enterprise (EPSE) is responsible for procurement, import of

petroleum products and distribution to local oil companies. It is also responsible of testing the quality of

the petroleum products.



Ethiopian Sugar Corporation (ESCo)

The Ethiopian Sugar Corporation (EPCo) is established in 2010 by the Council of Ministers Regulation

No.192/2010 replacing the former Ethiopian Sugar Development Agency with the major purpose of

growing sugarcane and other sugar yielding crops; producing sugar and byproducts, selling sugar and

byproducts in the domestic and export markets; undertaking of feasibility studies, design preparation,

technology selection and negotiation, erection and commissioning of new sugar development and

expansion projects; and to engage and support the private sector in the sugar development [70].

Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)

The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) is responsible for formulating policies, strategies, laws

and standards, which foster social and economic development to enhance the welfare of humans and the

safety of the environment sustainably, lead in ensuring the effectiveness of the processes for their

implementation [64].

5.4.2 Developmental Partners

Below are the major developmental partners that support the energy sector of Ethiopia in addition to

other several activities in the socio-economic development of the country.

World Bank (WB)

The World Bank (WB) helps Ethiopia to fight poverty and improving living standards by promoting rapid

economic growth and improving service delivery [89]. It is a leading institution with financial and

technical assistance in almost all developing countries. The bank involves in the energy sector of Ethiopia

by providing critical financial and technical support needed to enable EEPCo and MoWE to scale up

electrification and energy access projects.

European Union (EU)

The European (EU) through European Union Energy Initiative (EUEI) financed capacity building for

off-grid rural electrification planning) within Rural Electrification Executive Secretariat (REES) and on

the regional level [52]. The EU also gives financial support to enhance energy development projects in

Ethiopia.

African Development Bank (AfDB)

The African Development Bank (AfDB) is one the leading organization that supports the socio-economic

development of Africa. The bank supports energy development projects in Ethiopia like wind power (i.e.

Aluto Langano geothermal project) and wind power (i.e. Assela wind farm project); and power

transmission lines extension projects [46].

Arab Bank for Economic Development in Africa (BADEA)

The Arab Bank for Economic Development in Africa (BADEA) was established for supporting

sustainable development and poverty reduction in Africa by providing technical and financial support.

The bank supports the country to extend the national electricity grid to supply electricity to rural towns

and villages; and improve the national electricity access rate [46].



United Nations Development Program (UNDP)

The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) is supporting to strengthen the national capacity of

135 developing countries to manage the environment in a sustainable manner to advance poverty

reduction efforts. The office of UNDP in Ethiopia has facilitated the formulation of the national Climate

Resilient Green Economy (CRGE) document as well as sector and regional plans; and provided finances

for the establishment of a national CRGE facility. It strongly advocates and facilitates Ethiopia's access to

new, modern and environmentally friendly practices [85].

United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)

The main mission of United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) to provide leadership and

encourage partnership in caring for the environment by inspiring, informing, and enabling nations and

peoples to improve their quality of life without compromising that of future generations. It has liaison

office in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia with the purpose collaborating, facilitating and consulting of

environmental issues with partners and stakeholders [86].

GIZ's Energy Coordination Office

The GIZ's Energy Coordination Office (ECO) is supporting to improve access to modern energy in

Ethiopia through its Energizing Development Program. The program involves capacity development

measures for all the partners in the program, such as governmental and non-governmental organizations,

and for representatives of the private sector and local communities which includes the use of pilot

projects and other support measures to promote sustainable energy in the country. The interventions of

ECO are summarized into following three areas [61].

� Advising the government on policies, strategies, laws and program so that to increase private sector

involvement in renewable energy.

� Promoting rural electrification by building up local capacities and international linkages for the

provision of small-scale solar energy and hydropower systems.

� Promoting the use of energy efficient cooking technologies, such as ‘Mirt’ wood stove, the ‘Tikikil’

wood stove, and the institutional rocket stove (IRS).

Stichting Nederlandse Vrijwilligers (SNV)

Stichting Nederlandse Vrijwilligers (SNV) is the Netherlands development organization which provides

capacity development, facilitates knowledge development and networking, and creates policy dialogue at

the national and international levels. It has supported the preparation and implementation of the national

biogas development program of Ethiopia in cooperation with EREDPC. The main role of SNV in

national biogas development program is technical advice, promotion, network creation and building

partnership [16].

Stiftung Solarenergie

The Stiftung Solarenergie is a community based solar energy foundation founded by a charity community`

from Germany and Switzerland with major objective of providing electricity from solar power to rural

Ethiopia like small farmer’s house, schools, health centers and religious institutes. The foundation has

been operating in Ethiopia since 2005, and the first pilot project was done in a village called Rema which

230 kilometers north of the capital city, Addis Ababa. Following the findings in the pilot project, Stiftung



has opened solar energy training center in the pilot project area since 2007 to promote solar energy in the

country with long-term and to prepare solar energy technicians to open their own small enterprises in the

rural Ethiopia [33].

Gaia Association

Gaia Association is non-profit organization that promotes clean cooking stoves, particularly ethanol

cooking stoves in few developing countries. It is working with a clean ethanol cooking stove project by

undertaking pilot studies in Ethiopia since 2005. About 3,400 Somali families in the Kebribeyah and

Awbarre refugee camps use clean ethanol cooking stoves as a result of the pilot studies [74]. Gaia

Association is currently partnering with local enterprise Makobu PLC to manufacture the stoves locally

and produce ethanol from agricultural and waste [4].

Horn of Africa Regional Environment Center (HoAREC)

The Horn of Africa Regional Environment Centre and Network (HoAREC) deals with environmental

concerns and sustainable development options within the Horn of Africa. The Centre works as an

autonomous institution under Addis Ababa University. It facilitates, strengthens and advocates the

initiatives related to environmental conservation and natural resource management to reduce

deforestation and forest degradation [75].



6 Chapter Six: Modeling and Analysis

This part of the study has been done using LEAP, a software tool developed by Stockholm Environment

Institute that is widely used for energy policy analysis and climate change mitigation assessments. LEAP is

an integrated modeling tool used to analyze energy consumption, production and resource extraction in

all sectors of an economy [57]. Moreover, it can be used for the evaluation of GHG emissions associated

with different technologies in energy consumption and production [27]. The different input data for the

LEAP and parameters/targets which are established for each of the formulated scenarios are briefly

described below.

6.1 Data Organization and Justification

6.1.1 Population and Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Population and GPD are the main drivers of energy demand. Household energy demand increases when

population increases. With an increase in GDP, the consumption of energy in transport and industry is

also increased. The trend of population and GDP (constant 2000 USD) is shown below (see table 6.1).

Table 6.1: Trend of population and GDP of Ethiopia (Source: [90], [91])

Population ( million People )

Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Population 65.6 67.3 69 70.8 72.5 74.3 76 77.7 79.4 81.2 82.9 84.7

USD (billion USD)

Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

GDP (2000 USD) 8.1 8.8 8.9 8.7 9.9 11.1 12.3 13.7 15.2 16.5 18.1 19.5

From the above trend, the average annual growth rate of population and GDP is 2.4% and 8.4%

respectively; and taking these growth rates, the population and GDP for 2012 are estimated at 86.7

million people and 21.1 billion USD respectively.

6.1.2 Percentage Distribution of Households by Cooking Stove

The percentage distribution of households by cooking stove is taken from the percentage distribution of

households by cooking fuel which is collected from CSA welfare monitoring survey (1996, 1998, 2000,

2004 and 2011) (see annex 2). Both the urban and rural households are used wood as cooking fuel using

traditional cooking stoves. There are small numbers of households especially in the urban areas that use

improved wood and charcoal stoves. However, the percentage distribution of these households is

insignificant and taken as negligible. The percentage distribution of households by cooking stove is shown

below (see table 6.2).

Table 6.2: Percentage distribution of households by cooking stove

Percentage Distribution of Urban Households by Cooking Stove

Cooking Stove 1996 1998 2000 2004 2011

Traditional Wood Stoves 61.7 62.9 57.9 65.33 63.31

Improved Wood Stoves - - - - -

Traditional Charcoal Stoves 4.3 5 8.3 7.65 17.54

Improved Charcoal Stoves - - - - -

Electricity Stoves 2.7 3.8 2.2 2.36 6.18



Kerosene Stoves 18.9 17.2 21.5 13.84 4.93

LPG Stoves 1 2.5 1.4 2.69 1.05

Biogas Stoves - - - - 0.01

Bioethanol Stoves - - - - -

Others 11.4 8.5 8.7 6.1 3.4

Number of Households 1,583,823 1,603,869 1,666,208 2,112,957 3,437,158

Percentage Distribution of Rural Households by Cooking Stove

Cooking Stove 1996 1998 2000 2004 2011

Traditional Wood Stoves 75.5 78.2 78.8 84.45 90.85

Improved Wood Stoves - - - - -

Traditional Charcoal Stoves 0.1 0.1 0 0.16 0.23

Improved Charcoal Stoves - - - - -

Electricity Stoves - - - 0.05 0.01

Kerosene Stoves 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.21 0.17

LPG Stoves 0 0.1 0.1 0.07 0.04

Biogas Stoves - - - - -

Bioethanol Stoves - - - - -

Others 24.6 21.5 20.8 14.99 8.6


Note that, others represent traditional stoves that use animal dung, sawdust, crop residues and other

residues.

6.1.3 Energy Efficiency of Cooking Stoves

It is thermal efficiency of the cooking stoves that determines the consumption of the cooking fuel.

Obviously, the use of traditional wood stoves with low thermal efficiency (i.e. less than 10%) has resulted

in high consumption of wood. The thermal efficiency of the cooking stoves available in Ethiopia is

summarized below (see table 6.3).

Table 6.3: Thermal efficiency of cooking stove (Source: [8], [28])

Cooking Stove Thermal Efficiency (%)

Traditional Wood Stoves 7.5

Improved Wood Stoves 21.5

Traditional Charcoal Stoves 10

Improved Charcoal Stoves 25

Electric Stoves 75

Kerosene Stoves 35

LPG Stoves 65

Biogas Stoves 55

Bioethanol Stoves 55

Others 7.5

Note that, the thermal efficiency of biogas stove is considered the same as that of bioethanol stoves.



6.1.4 Average Annual Consumption of Cooking Fuels per Household

The average annual consumption of cooking fuels per household has been calculated from the annual

useful thermal energy for cooking per household and thermal efficiency of cooking stoves. The annual

useful thermal energy is calculated by taking biomass energy consumption of the households in 2009. The

biomass energy consumption of the households was 27.37 Mtoe (i.e. 1.14 EJ gigajoules) [49]. Considering

that only 97% of this biomass energy (i.e. 1.11 EJ) was used for cooking with 7.5% average thermal

efficiency of cooking stoves, the useful thermal energy for cooking is estimated at 83.25 PG in the same

period. On the other hand, the number of households in 2009 is estimated at 15.4 million from CSA

welfare monitoring survey (2000, 2004 and 2011) and of which about 96.6% (i.e. 14.9 million households)

used biomass energy for cooking. Therefore, the average annual useful thermal energy for cooking per

household is about 5.6 GJ; and this average useful thermal energy value is assumed to be the same for

every household considering that majority of the households have more or less similar living standard and

household size. Then using thermal efficiency of cooking stoves, the value of average annual useful

thermal energy per household is converted into average annual consumption of respective cooking fuels

per household (i.e. 5.6 GJ/thermal efficiency of cooking stoves) and summarized below (see table 6.4).

Table 6.4: Average annual consumption of cooking fuels per household

Cooking Fuel Unit LHV

(GJ/Ton) Cooking Stove

Thermal

Efficiency (%)

Consumption

(Tons/HH)

Consumption

(GJ/HH)

Wood

Ton 15.6

Traditional Wood

Stoves 7.5

4.79 74.7

Improved Wood

Stoves 21.5 1.67 26

Charcoal

Ton 29.5

Traditional Charcoal

Stoves 10 1.9 56

Improved Charcoal

Stoves 25 0.76 22.4

Kerosene Ton 35.3 Kerosene Stoves 35 0.37 16

LPG Ton 47.3 LPG Stoves 65 0.18 8.6

Biogas Ton 20 Biogas Stoves 55 0.51 10.2

Bioethanol Ton 26.8 Bioethanol Stoves 55 0.38 10.2

Dung and Other Residues Ton 14 Others 7.5 5.33 74.7

Following the same procedure and taking 75% average thermal efficiency of electric stoves, the annual

electricity consumption for cooking per household is calculated at 7.5 GJ (i.e. 5.6 GJ/0.75).

It is seen that about 3.1 tons of wood (i.e. 4.79 - 1.67) and 1.3 tons of charcoal (i.e. 1.96 - 0.76) per

household can be saved annually by using improved wood and charcoal stoves respectively.

6.1.5 Consumption of Bioethanol

Bioethanol is used as a transport fuel, and as an input in food and beverage industries. It can also be used

for as raw material in biodiesel production. The transport sector is major consumer of bioethanol which

is started in 2008 with E5 (i.e. 5% blend with gasoline) for Addis Ababa and its surroundings. Starting

from the year 2011, E10 has been introduced. The country’s long-term plan is to increase the blend

considering the expansion of bioethanol production from sugar industries, engine modification and the

introduction of flex engine cars. The distribution loss of bioethanol is about 2.2% which is from

movement loss, underground tank loss, vehicle tank loss and evaporation loss.



6.1.6 Consumption of Gasoline

Gasoline is used as transport fuel for light vehicles. According to the study conducted by an expert from

MoWE, Addis Ababa and its surrounding accounted for about 70% of the total gasoline consumption.

The trend of gasoline import is shown below (see table 6.5).

Table 6.5: Trend of gasoline import in Ethiopia

Gasoline Import ( million ton )

Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Gasoline 0.136 0.132 0.141 0.139 0.138 0.142 0.140 0.141 0.145 0.153 0.150 0.145

Gasoline Import (petajoule)

Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Gasoline 5.91 5.71 6.11 6.05 6 6.15 6.1 6.14 6.28 6.64 6.5 6.3

From the discussion with officials and experts of EPSE and MoWE during the fieldwork, it is found that

about 98% of the imported gasoline is directly consumed by the transport sector, and the rest 2% is taken

as a distribution loss mainly from movement loss, underground tank loss and vehicle tank loss.

Note that, the original data from EPSE is in the form of Ethiopian fiscal year which starts at July 1 and

ends with June 30, and covers six month from each consecutive Gregorian calendar years. For example,

the fiscal year 2012/13 started at July 1, 2012 and ended at June 30, 2013 which means six months from

2012 and six months from 2013. In this analysis, the annual raw data in Ethiopia fiscal year has been

changed to Gregorian calendar by adding two consecutive raw data of Ethiopian fiscal year and then

divided by 2. For instance, Ethiopia imported 142,526.1 and 129,964.4 tons of gasoline in 1999/00 and

2000/01 Ethiopian fiscal year respectively; therefore, the gasoline imported in 2000 Gregorian calendar

year has been calculated as (142,526.1 + 129,964.4)/2 which is equal to 136,245.25 tons and similar

calculation has been done for other years.

6.1.7 Consumption of Biodiesel

The use of biodiesel in the transport sector is not started so far but expected to begin in the near future.

6.1.8 Consumption of Diesel

In Ethiopia, diesel is used by heavy vehicles, public transportation, construction machines and agricultural

machines for road transport, and by diesel generators for electricity generation. The trend of imported

diesel is presented below (see table 6.6).

Table 6.6: Trend of diesel import in Ethiopia

Diesel (million ton )

Year 2000 2002 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Diesel 0.522 0.555 0.586 0.616 0.658 0.713 0.773 0.890 1.02 1.1 1.08 1.07

Diesel (petajoule)

Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Diesel 22.13 23.55 24.85 26.10 27.89 30.24 32.76 37.75 43.44 46.58 45.95 45.34



As per the discussion with officials and experts of EPSE and MoWE during the fieldwork, from the

imported biodiesel about 90% is used for transport, 8% for electricity generation and the rest 2% is taken

as a distribution loss in the from movement loss, underground tank loss and vehicle tank loss.

6.1.9 Energy for Cement Production

The production process of cement in Ethiopia is the most energy intensive and requires a large amount of

fossil fuels such as furnace oil, coal and petroleum coke. The minimum energy consumption for the

pyroprocessing is about 4.2 gigajoule per ton of cement (i.e. taking the existing practice of Mugher

Cement Factory’s furnace oil consumption) [14]. The trend of cement production in the county is shown

below (see table 6.7).

Table 6.7: Trend of cement production in Ethiopia (Source: MoI)

Cement Production ( million ton )

Year 2000 2002 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Cement 0.816 0.819 0.919 0.890 1.42 1.25 1.32 1.46 1.96 2.27 2.61 3.24

Taking the average annual growth rate of cement production (i.e. 14.74%), cement production for 2012 is

estimated at 3.72 million tons. The demand of cement is growing due to the growth of construction

industry; and cement industries are expanded for increasing production to satisfy the growing demand.

6.2 Scenario Formulation

Scenario represents a self-consistent story line about how an energy system might evolve over time.

LEAP supports long-range scenario analysis; and different researchers have used LEAP for scenario

analysis to simulate the future trend of an energy system. For instance, Nilsson et al. (2012) formulated

three scenarios to examine how energy needs for human and economic development can be met in a way

that is compatible with long-term sustainable development at the global scale. The first one is a baseline

scenario that considers business as usual trends for population growth, GHG emissions, macroeconomic

indicators, energy consumption and production, and resource use, and assumes that current economic

and energy policies will broadly continue, and that major efforts to tackle climate change will not

materialize. The second one is the basic energy access scenario which explores trends similar to those in

the baseline scenario but imposes a constraint on energy systems by assuming that there will be major

global efforts to tackle climate change, keeping the global average temperature increase to below 2°C, and

provisioning of basic energy access for all by 2050. The third one is the shared development agenda

scenario which takes basic energy access scenario as a starting point and explores the implications of

more equitable trajectories of income growth [30]. Islas et al. (2006) explored and evaluated three

scenarios to analyze the bioenergy resource potential of Mexico for residential, transport and electric

generation sectors. The first one is the base scenario in which fossil fuels are assumed to be the dominant

source of energy. Whereas in the other two scenarios, moderate penetration and high penetration

scenarios, the long-term shifts in bioenergy use were analyzed on the basis of technical and economic

feasibility of bioenergy resources [27]. Fol (2012) analyzed the long-term renewable energy transition of

Namibia using three alternative scenarios. The first scenario is ‘business as usual scenario’ which

considers Namibian energy system undergoes no institutional change in the future. The second

progressive renewable scenario considers the development of grid-connected renewable energy was

considered. The third high renewable scenario considers the maximum utilization of renewable energy

resources (wind, biomass and sun) to replace fossil fuels such as oil and coal [23].



In this study, three scenarios namely, ‘baseline’ and other two alternative scenarios (i.e. ‘moderate shift’

and ‘high shift’) are formulated within a timeframe that goes from 2013 to 2030. The main bases for

formulating the alternative scenarios are green economy strategy of Ethiopia (2011), cooking stoves

investment plan (2011), biofuel development and utilization strategy (2007), energy policy (1994),

environmental policy (1997), and information gathered using fieldwork (2013). The baseline scenario

assumes the existing energy practices of Ethiopia would continue without significant change in the future.

Whereas, the other two alternative scenarios considers future shifts in the bioenergy use of the country

that include energy efficiency improvement in the household sector, biofuels deployment in the transport

sectors, the introduction of agricultural residues as a fuel for cement production as well as bagasse and

municipal solid waste for electricity generation. The moderate shift scenario is formulated based on the

most likely achievable parameters taking into consideration the possible constraints such as financial,

technical, technological and management inefficiency that would hinder implementation process of the

shifts. On the other hand, the high shift scenario is formulated based on optimistic parameters/targets

considering if there would not be significant constraints that could affect the implementation process.

The parameters/targets taken into consideration for each scenario have been presented below with

justification.

6.2.1 Baseline Scenario

� From the total number of households of Ethiopia, 80% are taken as rural households and the rest

20% as urban households. The average household size is considered as 5 people per household and

taken as common to all scenarios.

� The population is assumed to grow with annual growth rate of 2.4% which is average annual growth

rate of population trend data.

� GDP (constant 2000 USD) is also considered to grow with annual growth rate of 8.4% which is

average annual growth rate of GDP trend data.

� The annual growth rate percentage distribution of both rural and urban households by cooking stove

is formulated taking the percentage distribution of 2004 and 2011 and it is summarized below (see

table 6.8)

Table 6.8: Annual growth rate of household percentage distribution by cooking stove

Growth Rate of Urban Household Percentage Distribution

Cooking Stove 2004 2011 2012

Traditional Wood Stoves 65.33 63.31 63.03

Growth Rate (%)

-3.1 -0.44

Traditional Charcoal Stoves 7.65 17.54 20.78

Growth Rate (%)

129.3 18.5

Electric Stoves 2.36 6.18 7.61

Growth Rate (%)

161.9 23.1

Kerosene Stoves 13.84 4.93 4.68

Growth Rate (%)

-64.4 -9.2

LPG Stoves 2.69 1.05 0.96

Growth Rate (%)

-610 -8.7

Others 6.1 3.4 3.19

Growth Rate (%)

-44.3 -6.3

Growth Rate of Rural Household Percentage Distribution

Cooking Stove 2004 2011 2012

Traditional Wood Stoves 84.45 90.85 90.9



Growth Rate (%)

7.6 1.1

Traditional Charcoal Stoves 0.16 0.23 0.24

Growth Rate (%)

43.8 6.3

Electric Stoves 0.05 0.01 0.01

Growth Rate (%) -0.3 -0.04 -0.006

Kerosene Stoves 0.21 0.17 0.17

Growth Rate (%) -19 -2.7

LPG Stoves 0.07 0.04 0.04

Growth Rate (%)

-42.9 -6.1

Others 14.99 8.6 8.08

Growth Rate (%)

-42.6 -6.1

The shaded growth rates are the annual growth rates which are calculated by dividing the growth

rates from 2004 to 2011 by 7; and these annual growth rates have been used to calculate the

percentage distribution of households by 2012 and for baseline scenario. As shown in the above

table, Kerosene, LPG stoves and other traditional stoves that use animal dung, sawdust, crop residues

and other residues have shown decreasing trend from 2004 to 2011. In this scenario, the percentage

distribution of urban households that will use kerosene stoves, LPG stoves and other traditional

stoves are assumed to decline by -9%, -9% and -6% respectively; and the percentage distribution of

rural households that will use kerosene stoves, LPG stoves and other traditional stoves is expected to

decrease by -3%, -6% and -6% respectively. The percentage distribution of urban households that

will use electric stoves is considered to increase by 3% following the expansion of electricity

generation and access; and the percentage of distribution of rural households is also assumed to grow

by 1% following the expansion of rural electrification. The trend shows that the percentage

distribution of households for traditional charcoal stoves increased both in urban and rural areas; and

considered to continue growth by 1% and 6% respectively. Currently, the use of bioethanol stove is

insignificant and limited to refugee camp in Somali region and in a very few urban households. The

use of biogas stoves can also be considered as insignificant like bioethanol stoves. The rest majority

of the households are expected to use traditional wood stoves. Also, there are a small number of non-

cook households (i.e. households who do not cook) in both urban and rural areas. The percentage

distribution of urban and rural non-cook households is taken as 2% and 1% respectively and

common to all scenarios.

� In this scenario, the use of E10 by Otto IC engine cars is assumed to continue in Addis Ababa and its

surroundings. For the purpose of LEAP modeling and analysis, the volume composition of the blend

is changed to energy composition using LHV and density of bioethanol (i.e. 26.8 MJ/Kg and 0.789

Kg/liter) and gasoline (i.e. 43.4 MJ/Kg and 0.741 Kg/liter); and the energy composition of the blend

is a factor of these LHV and density (i.e. (26.8 * 0.789 * share of bioethanol (%)) /(26.8 * 0.789 *

share of bioethanol (%) + 43.4 * 0.741 * share of gasoline (%)). Therefore, 10% of bioethanol blend

by volume is equal to about 7% by energy content.

� Currently, since there is no large-scale biodiesel production for transport sector, this situation is

assumed to continue as usual in this scenario.

� Currently, the use of agricultural residues as fuel for cement production is not started. In this

scenario, this condition is assumed to continue as usual.

� Currently, there is no electricity generation from municipal solid waste and no excess electricity

generation from cogeneration of bagasse by sugar industries to contribute for the national grid. In

this scenario, these situations are assumed to continue as usual.



� From the existing practices, the conversion efficiencies of bioethanol, biodiesel, biogas and charcoal

productions are taken at 42%, 33%, 7% and 24% respectively; and used to calculate the primary

resources requirement. Common for all scenarios.

� Distribution loss of 2.2%, 2%, 2% and 5% are considered for bioethanol, biodiesel, biogas and

charcoal productions respectively. Common for all scenarios.

� The complete combustion of bioethanol and biodiesel can produce 79.6 Kg and 70.8 Kg of CO2 per

gigajoule respectively while the combustion of gasoline and diesel can emit 69.3 Kg and 74.1 Kg of

CO2 per gigajoule respectively (see annex 1). However, the CO2 emitted during combustion of

bioethanol and biodiesel is part of the cycle in which CO2 is absorbed from the atmosphere while

growing of their feedstock crops. Therefore, the net emission of bioethanol and biodiesel can be

considered as zero; and considering zero net CO2 emission, 69.3 Kg and 74.1 Kg of CO2 per

gigajoule can be saved from using bioethanol and biodiesel as substitution of gasoline and diesel

respectively. This is applied for all scenarios.

� By taking the average market price of volunteer and bilateral dealing, the revenue from carbon trading

schemes is taken at 5 USD per ton of CO2e abated [44]. This is also applied for all scenarios.

The summary of the parameters/targets for the baseline scenario is shown below (see table 6.9).

Table 6.9: Summary of parameters for the baseline scenario

Description Growth Rate (%)

Population 2.4

GDP (Constant 2000 USD) 8.4

Distribution of Urban Households by Cooking Stove (%)

Cooking Stove Growth Rate (%) Remark

Traditional Wood Stove Remainder (98) 2% Non-Cook

Improved Wood Stove 0

Traditional Charcoal Stove 2

Improved Charcoal Stove 0

Electric Stove 4

Kerosene Stove -9

LPG Stove -9

Biogas Stove 0

Bioethanol Stove 0

Others -6

Distribution of Rural Households by Cooking Stove (%)

Cooking Stove Growth Rate (%) Remark

Traditional Wood Stove Remainder (99) 1% Non-Cook

Improved Wood Stove 0

Traditional Charcoal Stove 6

Improved Charcoal Stove 0

Electric Stove 1

Kerosene Stove -3

LPG Stove -6

Biogas Stove 0

Bioethanol Stove 0

Others -6

Biofuels Blending (%)



Biofuels Share (%) Remark

Bioethanol by Volume 10 No Change

Bioethanol by Energy 6 No Change

Biodiesel by Volume 0 No Change

Biodiesel by Energy 0 No Change

Substitution of Fossil Fuels in Cement Industries (%)

Resource Type Share (%) Remark

Agricultural Residues 0 Not Started

Electricity Generation (GWh)

Resource Type Generation Remark

Bagasse 0 Not Started

Municipal Solid Waste 0 Not Started

Note that, sugar industries generate electricity from bagasse for self-consumption but excess electricity

generation from bagasse for the national grid is not yet started.

6.2.2 Moderate Shift Scenario

In this scenario as well as in high shift scenario, the values of most parameters/targets have been

established based on the timeframe of each GTP of Ethiopia. GTP is a five year ambitious development

plan used to increase growth, development and industrialization of the country to reach to middle-

economy status by 2025 while developing green economy. The country’s GTP1 is already implemented

since 2011 and will end by 2015. GTP2 will be implemented from 2016 to 2020, GTP3 from 2021 to

2025 and GTP4 from 2026 to 2030.

� The population by GTP 4 (i.e. 2030) is considered to reach 120,000,000 from which 25% will live in

urban areas. And this common for high shift scenario.

� The GDP of the country is estimated to reach 117.3 Billion USD considering annual GDP growth of

10% which is slightly higher than the average annual GDP growth rate of the GTP trend data.

� According to cooking investment plan of the country, 80% of the total rural households (i.e. about

14.4 million rural households) are expected to use improved wood stoves by 2030 [48]. In this

scenario, considering financial constraints, technical constraints, management inefficiency and others

constraints, about 75% of this target is assumed to be achieved which means 10.8 million rural

households will use improved wood stoves (i.e. 60% of the total rural households). Considering

evenly distribution for each GTP, the percentage distribution of rural households that use improved

wood stoves will be 15%, 30% and 45% in 2015, 2020 and 2025 respectively. Similarly, 5% of the

total urban households (i.e. about 0.3 million urban households) are expected to use improved wood

stove by 2030. In this scenario, considering 75% of this target will be achieved, about 0.225 million of

urban households (i.e. 3.75% of the total urban households) will use improved wood stoves by 2030;

and the percentage distribution of urban households that use improved wood stoves by 2015, 2020

and 2025 will be 0.94%, 1.88% and 2.81% respectively considering evenly distribution for each GTP.

� The percentage distribution of urban households that will use improved charcoal stoves is assumed

to be 9% by 2015 and increases to 15%, 20% and 25% by 2020, 2025 and 2030 respectively; and the

percentage distribution of rural households that will use improved charcoal stoves is also considered

to increase to 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.3% and 0.4% by 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030 respectively. Due to the

implementation of improved charcoal stoves, the number of households that use traditional charcoal

stoves will decreases. As a result, the percentage of distribution of urban households that use

traditional charcoal stoves will decrease to 15%, 10%, 5% and 0% by 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030



respectively; and the percentage distribution of rural households will also decrease to 0.2%, 0.15%,

0.1% and 0.05% by 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030 respectively.

� The number of urban households that use electric stoves will increase following the expansion of

electricity generation projects and electricity access. From the cooking stoves investment plan, 53%

of the total urban households (i.e. about 3.18 million urban households) are expected to use electric

stoves by 2030 [48]; and considering 75% of this target will be achieved, 2.39 million urban

households (i.e. 39.7% of the total urban households) will use electric stoves by 2030; and about

9.9%, 19.8% and 29.7% of the urban households by 2015, 2020 and 2025 respectively. The number

of rural households that will use electric stoves is also expected to increase following the expansion of

rural electrification; and 5% of the total rural households (i.e. about 0.9 million rural households) are

expected to use electric stoves by 2030. Assuming 75% achievement for this scenario, 0.675 million

rural households (i.e. 3.75% of the total rural households) will use electric stoves by 2030; and about

0.94%, 1.88% and 2.82% of rural households by 2015, 2020 and 2025 respectively.

� In this scenario, the use bioethanol stoves by urban households is considered to become significant

since there are several initiatives like MoWE, GAIA and others for manufacturing, promotion and

adoption of such stoves. Bioethanol stoves are better used in urban areas than rural areas because of

lack of infrastructure to reach rural areas (i.e. poor access to bioethanol). Moreover, bioethanol is not

competitive in terms of price with wood and biogas which are more accessible in rural areas.

Consequently, 0.75%, 1.5%, 2.25% and 3% of the urban households are assumed to use bioethanol

stoves by 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030 respectively.

� Biogas stoves are more suitable for rural households due to the availability of animal dung for biogas

production at household level; and according to the cooking investment plan, 5% of the total rural

households (i.e. 0.9 million rural households) are expected to use biogas stoves by 2030. In this

scenario, considering 75% achievement of this target, 0.675 million rural households (i.e. 0.375% of

the total rural households) will use biogas stoves by; and the percentage distribution of rural

households that use biogas stoves by 2015, 2020 and 2025 will be 0.94%, 1.88% and 2.82%

respectively.

� Mainly due to the price increment of kerosene, the use of kerosene stoves is decreased in both urban

and rural areas as shown in CSA welfare monitoring survey (2000, 2004 and 2011). In this scenario,

the percentage distribution of urban households that will use kerosene stoves is considered to be

3.5% by 2015 and decrease to 2%, 0.5% and 0% by 2020, 2025 and 2030 respectively; and the

percentage distribution of rural households that will use kerosene stoves is also assumed to decrease

from 0.15% by 2015 to 0.05%, 0% and 0% by 2020, 2025 and 2030 respectively.

� Like kerosene stoves, the percentage distribution of households that use LPG stoves has also shown

deceasing trend both in urban and rural areas. In this scenario, it is assumed that there will not be

households that use LPG stoves after 2020. The percentage distribution of urban households that use

LPG stoves will be 0.7% and 0.5% by 2015 and 2020 respectively; and the percentage distribution of

rural households that use LPG stoves will be 0.03% and 0.01% by 2015 and 2020 respectively.

� The use of other traditional stoves for animal dung, agricultural residues, sawdust and other residues

has shown decreasing trend by both urban and rural households. In this scenario, the urban

households that will use other traditional stoves is assumed to decrease from 2.5% by 2015 to 1%,

0% and 0% by 2020, 2025 and 2030 respectively; and the percentage distribution of rural households

that will use kerosene stoves is also considered to decrease from 6% by 2015 to 4%, 2% and 0% by

2020, 2025 and 2030 respectively.

� Considering 2% of the urban households and 1% rural households to be non-cook, 55.71%, 46.52%,

37.73% and 26.55% of the urban households will use traditional wood stove by 2015, 2020, 2025 and

2030 respectively; and the percentage distribution of rural households that use traditional wood

stoves will be 75.64%, 60.83%, 45.96% and 31.05% by 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030 respectively.



� In this scenario, 10% and 15% bioethanol blend with gasoline by volume (i.e. 7% and 10.5% by

energy content) is assumed for Addis Ababa and its surroundings by 2015 and 2020 respectively; and

15% (i.e. 10.4% by energy content) and 20% (i.e. 14% by energy content) for the whole country by

2025 and 2030 respectively considering bioethanol blending stations will be expanded throughout the

country. Biodiesel blend with diesel is assumed to be started by 2017 with B2 (i.e. 2% biodiesel blend

diesel by volume). Considering the LHV and density of biodiesel (37.5 MJ/Kg, 0.88 Kg/liter and

diesel (42.4 MJ/Kg and 0.844 Kg/liter), 2% biodiesel blend by volume is equal to about 1.8% by

energy content. The blend by 2025 and 2030 is assumed to reach 5% and 7% by volume which

means 4.6% and 6.5% by energy content respectively.

� One of the strategies of the green economy of the country is to use biomass resources like

agricultural residues as a fuel for cement production so that to reduce fossil fuels consumption and

GHG emissions. To achieve this objective, there is a target to replace 20% of the fossil fuels

consumption of cement industries with biomass by 2030 [44]. In this scenario, 2% by 2015 to 5%,

10% and 15% of fossil fuels consumption is assumed to be replaced with agricultural residues per

total production of cement by 2020, 2025 and 2030 respectively.

� Excess electricity generation from cogeneration of bagasse for the national grid is considered to be

started in 2015 with 101 MW (558 GWh) from Methara, Wonji Shoa and Tendaho Sugar Factories,

and assumed to be increased by same amount by 2020 and 2025 following the expansion of sugar

industries; and excess electricity generation after 2025 is assumed to remain the same considering if

there will not be expansion of sugar industries due to market saturation and other constraints. As a

result, the excess electricity generation from cogeneration of bagasse will be 1,116 GWh, 1,674 GWh

and 1,674 GWh in 2020, 2025 and 2030 respectively. Electricity generation from incineration of

municipal solid waste is also considered to be started in 2015 with 50 MW (360 GWh) following

waste to energy project of Addis Ababa. Waste to energy plants will be expanded among other major

cities. In this scenario, Mekele, Bahir Dar, and Diredawa are assumed to have 25 MW (180 GWh)

waste to energy plant each by 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030. Thus, the total electricity generation from

municipal solid waste will reach to 550 GWh, 720 GWh and 900 GWh respectively.

� A shift from using traditional wood stove to improved wood stoves (IWS) or fuel shift stoves (FSS)

(i.e. electric and bioethanol and biogas stoves) is considered annually to save on average 2.2 tons of

CO2e per household. Furthermore, the shift from using traditional wood stoves to IWS and FSS is

also considered annually to save 3 tons and 4.8 tons of wood per household respectively. This is

applied for all scenarios.

� The complete combustion of agricultural residues can produce 100 Kg of CO2 per gigajoule while the

combustion of coal, furnace oil and petroleum coke can emit 77.4 Kg, 94.6 Kg and 97.5 KG of CO2

per gigajoule respectively (see annex 1). Taking CO2 emitted during combustion of agricultural

residues is part of the cycle in which CO2 is absorbed from the atmosphere while growing of the

plants. Therefore, the net emission of agricultural residues can be considered as zero; and considering

zero net CO2 emission, on average 89.8 Kg of CO2 per gigajoule on can be saved from using

agricultural residues as a substitution of the above fossil fuels. This is also applied for high shift

scenario.

� To evaluate the amount of foreign currency saving from reduction of gasoline and diesel importing,

the average prices of gasoline (i.e. 1,093 USD per ton or 25 USD per gigajoule) and diesel (i.e. 951

USD per ton or 22 USD per gigajoule) are taken from EPSE. Since the price of oil is unpredictably

fluctuating, these prices are taken as stable price. And this is common for high shift scenario and

baseline scenario.

� Similarly, to evaluate the amount of the foreign currency saving from reduction of fossil fuels (i.e.

coal, furnace oil and petroleum coke) importing for cement industries, the average price (i.e. 416



USD per ton or 12 USD per gigajoule) are taken. Since the price of fossil fuels is also unpredictably

fluctuating, this price taken as stable price. And this is also applied for high shift scenario.

� In this scenario, the productivity of jatropha and castor is considered to be 2 and 1 tons per hectare

respectively.

The summary of the parameters/targets for the moderate scenario are presented below (see table 6.10).

Table 6.10: Summary of parameters for the moderate shift scenario

Description 2030

Population 120,000,000

GDP (Constant 2000 USD) 117.3 Billion


Cooking Stove 2015 2020 2025 2030

Traditional Wood Stove 55.71 46.52 37.73 26.55

Improved Wood Stove 0.94 1.88 2.82 3.75

Traditional Charcoal Stove 15 10 5 0

Improved Charcoal Stove 9 15 20 25

Electric Stove 9.9 19.8 29.7 39.7

Kerosene Stove 3.5 2 0.5 0

LPG Stove 0.7 0.3 0 0

Biogas Stove 0 0 0 0

Bioethanol Stove 0.75 1.5 2.25 3

Others 2.5 1 0 0


Cooking Stove 2015 2020 2025 2030


Improved Wood Stove 15 30 45 60

Traditional Charcoal Stove 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05

Improved Charcoal Stove 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Electric Stove 0.94 1.88 2.82 3.75

Kerosene Stove 0.15 0.05 0 0

LPG Stove 0.03 0.01 0 0

Biogas Stove 0.94 1.88 2.82 3.75

Bioethanol Stove 0 0 0 0

Others 6 4 2 0

Biofuels Blending (%)

Biofuels 2015 2020 2025 2030

Bioethanol by Volume 10 15 15 20

Bioethanol by Energy 7 10.4 10.4 14

Biodiesel by Volume 0 2 5 7

Biodiesel by Energy 0 1.8 4.6 6.5


Resource Type 2015 2020 2025 2030

Agricultural Residues 2 5 10 15

Electricity Generation (GWh)

Resource Type 2015 2020 2025 2030

Bagasse 558 1,116 1,674 1,674



Share (%) 61 67 69 64

Municipal Solid Waste 360 540 760 940

Share (%) 39 33 31 36

Total 918 1,656 2,434 2,614

6.2.3 High Shift Scenario

Unlike moderate scenario, this scenario is more optimistic. It considers high penetration in the use

efficient cooking stoves as per cooking investment plan of the country; and it also considers high

penetration in the efficient and modern use of bioenergy by household, transport, industry and for

electricity generation. High productivity of biofuels crops is also one of the considerations of this

scenario. The details of the parameters/targets which are established for this scenario are described as

follow.

� The GDP of the country is estimated to reach 138 Billion USD considering annual GDP growth of

11% which is the targeted growth rate of the green economy plan of the country [44].

� In this scenario, 80% of the total rural households are expected to use improved wood stoves by

2030 [48]; and considering evenly distribution for each GTP, the percentage distribution of rural

households that use improved wood stove will be 20%, 40% and 60% in 2015, 2020 and 2025

respectively. On the other hand, 5% of the total urban households are expected to use improved

wood stove by 2030; and the percentage distribution of urban households that use improved wood

stoves by 2015, 2020 and 2025 will be 1.25%, 2.5% and 4.75% respectively.

� The percentage distribution of urban households that will use improved charcoal stove is considered

to be 12% by 2015 and increase to 20% and 25% by 2020 and 2025 2030 respectively then decrease

to 20% by 2030; and the percentage distribution of rural households that will improved charcoal

stove is also considered to increase to 0.15%, 0.3%, 0.45% and 0.6% by 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030

respectively. Due to the implementation of improved charcoal stoves, the number of households that

use traditional charcoal stoves will decrease. In this scenario, the percentage of distribution of urban

households that use traditional charcoal stoves will decrease to 12.5%, 5%, 0% and 0% by 2015,

2020, 2025 and 2030 respectively; and the percentage distribution of rural households will also

decrease to 0.16%, 0.06%, 0% and 0% by 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030 respectively.

� 53% of the total urban households are expected to use electric stoves by 2030 [48]; and about

13.25%, 26.5% and 39.75% of the urban households by 2015, 2020 and 2025 respectively. Whereas,

5% of the total rural households would use electric stoves by 2030; and about 1.25%, 2.5% and

3.75% of rural households by 2015, 2020 and 2025 respectively.

� 1%, 2%, 3% and 4% of the total urban households are assumed to use bioethanol stoves by 2015,

2020, 2025 and 2030 respectively.

� 5% of the total rural households are expected to use biogas stoves by 2030; and the percentage

distribution of rural households that use biogas stoves by 2015, 2020 and 2025 will be 1.25%, 2.5%

and 3.75% respectively.

� The percentage distribution of urban households that will use kerosene stoves is considered to be 3%

by 2015 and decreases to 1.5% by 2020 and 0% since 2025; and the percentage distribution of rural

households that will use kerosene stoves is also assumed to decrease from 0.1% by 2015 to 0% since

2020.

� In this scenario, it is assumed that there will not be households that use LPG stoves after 2015. The

percentage distribution of urban households that use LPG stoves will be 0.5% by 2015; and the

percentage distribution of rural households that use LPG stoves will 0.02% by 2015.



� The urban households that will use other traditional stoves is assumed to decrease from 2% by 2015

to 0% since; and the percentage distribution of rural households that will use kerosene stoves is also

considered to decrease from 5% by 2015 to 2% by 2020 and 0% since 2025.

� Considering 2% of the urban household and 1% rural households are to be non-cook. 52.25%,

40.5%, 26.5% and 16% of the urban households will use traditional wood stove by 2015, 2020, 2025

and 2030 respectively; and the percentage distribution of rural households that use traditional wood

stoves will be 71.07%, 51.64%, 31.05% and 8.4% by 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030 respectively.

� In this scenario, 10% bioethanol blend with gasoline by volume (i.e. 7% by energy content) is

considered for Addis Ababa and its surroundings by 2015; and 20% (i.e. 10.4% by energy content),

20% (i.e. 14% by energy content) and 25% (i.e. 18% by energy content) for the whole country by

2020, 2025 and 2030. Biodiesel blend with diesel is assumed to be started in 2017 with B5 (i.e. 5%

biodiesel blend with diesel by volume or 4.6% by energy content); and the blend by 2025, and 2030 is

considered to reach 7% and 10% by volume which means 6.5% and 9.3% by energy content

respectively.

� 5%, 10%, 15% and 20% of fossil fuels consumption of cement industries is assumed to be replaced

with agricultural residues by 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030 respectively.

� Excess electricity generation from cogeneration of bagasse for the national grid is considered at 558

GWh by 2015 and assumed to be increased by this amount by 2020, 2025 and 2030 (i.e. 1,116 GWh,

1,674 GWh and 2,232 GWh respectively). Electricity generation from incineration of municipal solid

waste is also considered to be 360 GWh by 2015. Waste to energy plants will be expanded among

other major cities. In this scenario, Mekele and Bahir Dar, Diredawa and Awassa, and Adama and

Jimma are assumed to have 25 MW (180 GWh) waste to energy plant each by 2020, 2025 and 2030

respectively. Thus, the total electricity generation from municipal solid waste will reach to 720 GWh,

1080 GWh and 1440 GWh by 2015, 2020 and 2030 respectively.

� In this scenario, considering productivity improvement measures would be taken, the productivity of

jatropha and castor would increased to 3.5 and 1.2 tons per hectare respectively.

The summary of the parameters/targets for high shift scenario are presented below (see table 6.11).

Table 6.11: Summary of parameters for the high shift scenario

Description 2030

Population 120,000,000

GDP (Constant 2000 USD) 138 Billion


Cooking Stove 2015 2020 2025 2030

Traditional Wood Stove 52.25 40.5 26.5 16

Improved Wood Stove 1.25 2.5 3.75 5

Traditional Charcoal Stove 12.5 5 0 0

Improved Charcoal Stove 12 20 25 20

Electric Stove 13.25 26.5 39.75 53

Kerosene Stove 3 1.5 0 0

LPG Stove 0.5 0 0 0

Biogas Stove 0 0 0 0


Others 2 0 0 0


Cooking Stove 2015 2020 2025 2030




Improved Wood Stove 20 40 60 80

Traditional Charcoal Stove 0.16 0.06 0 0.0

Improved Charcoal Stove 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.6

Electric Stove 1.25 2.5 3.75 5

Kerosene Stove 0.1 0 0 0

LPG Stove 0.02 0 0 0

Biogas Stove 1.25 2.5 3.75 5


Others 5 2 0 0

Biofuel Blending (%)

Biofuels 2015 2020 2025 2030

Bioethanol by Volume 10 15 20 25

Bioethanol by Energy 7 10.4 14 18

Biodiesel by Volume 0 5 7 10

Biodiesel by Energy 0 4.6 6.5 9.3


Resource Type 2015 2020 2025 2030

Agricultural Residues 2 10 15 20

Electricity Generation Targets (GWh)

Resource Type 2015 2020 2025 2030

Bagasse 558 1,116 1,754 2,234

Share (%) 57 59 61 61

Municipal Solid Waste 360 760 1,080 1,440

Share (%) 43 041 39 39

Total 918 1,876 2,754 3,672

6.3 LEAP Branch Structure of the Model

The LEAP branch structure is the detail framework of the model which is developed to analyze the

scenarios. It has five main branches namely, key assumptions, demand, transformation, resources and

indicators. Each main branch has several sub-branches (see figure 6.1).



Figure 6.1: LEAP branch structure of the model

The relation diagrams created in the LEAP for demand to resource modeling and analysis is shown below

(see figure 6.2).



Figure 6.2: Demand to resource relationship diagram

It is seen that wood and animal dung are used directly for cooking as well as further processed to produce

charcoal and biogas respectively. Bagasse, municipal solid waste, agricultural residues and others (i.e. crop

residues, sawdust and other residues) are directly delivered to the demand side. Sugarcane molasses is

processed to produce bioethanol while jatropha and castor to produce biodiesel.



7 Chapter Seven: Results

In this section, the results obtained from the analysis such as energy demand, production, primary

resources requirement, and indicators are presented.

7.1 Energy Demand

Generally, the total energy demand by all sectors will increase in baseline scenario. However, the final

energy demand by household (i.e. final energy demand for cooking) tends to decrease in the both

moderate and high shift scenarios.

7.1.1 Sector

The energy demand would reach to 1,406.32, 1,265.48 and 1,212.82 million gigajoules by 2015 in the

baseline, moderate shift and high shift scenarios respectively; and household sector would account for

94.3%, 92.6% and 92.2% of the total energy demand respectively (see figure 7.1 and table 7.1).

Figure 7.1: Energy demand of sectors by 2015

The energy demand would increase to 2,096.36 million gigajoules by 2030 in the baseline scenario

whereas it would decrease to 1,191.78 and 984.15 million gigajoules in the moderate shift and high shift

scenarios respectively of which, the household sector would account for 89.4%, 74.7% and 64.9%

respectively (see figure 7.2 and table 7.1).



Figure 7.2: Energy demand of sectors by 2030

Table 7.1: Energy demand of sectors by 2015 and 2030

Energy Demand (Million Gigajoules)

Description 2015 2030

Baseline Moderate Shift High Shift Baseline Moderate Shift High Shift

Household 1,326.38 1,171.78 1,117.68 1,874.60 890.51 638.39

Otto IC Engine 6.63 6.72 6.82 7.69 8.41 9.19

Diesel IC Engine 53.42 54.93 55.7 147.38 174.25 189.36

Cement Industry 19.89 20.78 21.35 66.69 86.81 102.17

Electricity Generation 0 11.26 11.26 0 31.8 45.06

7.1.2 Household

In the baseline, moderate shift and high shift scenarios, the energy demand for cooking by urban

households would be 227.04, 221.77 and 208.85 million gigajoules by 2015 respectively; and wood

demand would account for 75.1%, 75.3% and 75.5% of the total energy demand respectively (see figure

7.3 and table 7.2).

Figure 7.3: Energy demand for cooking by urban households by 2015



The energy demand for cooking by urban households would reach to 306.18 million gigajoules by 2030 in

the baseline scenario but it would reduce to 178.15 and 132.69 million gigajoules in the moderate shift

and high shift scenarios respectively of which, wood demand would account for 72.2%, 70.1% and 59.9%

respectively (see figure 7.4 and table 7.2).

Figure 7.4: Energy demand for cooking by urban households by 2030

The energy demand for cooking by rural households would be 1,099.34, 950.01 and 908.84 gigajoules by

2015 in the baseline, moderate shift and high shift scenarios respectively of which, wood demand using

traditional wood stoves would account for 92.9%, 92.6% and 93.4% respectively (see figure 7.5 and table

7.2).

Figure 7.5: Energy demand for cooking by rural households by 2015

In the baseline scenario, the energy demand for cooking by rural households would reach to 1,568.42

million gigajoules by 2030. However, it would decrease to 712.36 and 505.7 million gigajoules in the

moderate shift and high shift scenarios respectively; and wood demand would account for 96.8%, 98%

and 96.4% of the total primary energy demand respectively (see figure 7.6 and table 7.2).



.

Figure 7.6: Energy demand for cooking by rural households by 2030

Table 7.2: Energy demand for cooking by 2015 and 2030

Energy Demand by Urban Households (Million Gigajoules)

Cooking Fuel 2015 2030


Wood 170.52 167.02 157.77 221.15 124.85 79.51

Charcoal 44.66 41.56 38.65 74 33.6 26.88

Electricity 2.39 2.96 3.96 6.15 17.86 23.85

Kerosene 1.89 2.23 1.92 0.65 0 0

LPG 0.23 0.24 0.17 0.08 0 0

Bioethanol 0 0.31 0.41 0 1.84 2.45

Biogas 0 0 0 0 0 0

Others 7.34 7.45 5.96 4.14 0 0

Energy Demand by Rural Households (Million Gigajoules)

Cooking Fuel 2015 2030


Wood 1,021.84 879.94 849.15 1,517.74 698.3 487.35

Charcoal 2.39 1.96 1.79 8.16 2.12 2.42

Electricity 0.01 1.03 1.37 0.02 5.06 6.75

Kerosene 0.37 0.35 0.23 0.33 0 0

LPG 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02 0 0

Bioethanol 0 0 0 0 0 0

Biogas 0 1.4 1.86 0 6.88 9.18

Others 74.7 65.29 54.41 42.14 0 0

7.1.3 Otto IC Engine Vehicles

The energy demand of Otto IC engine vehicles would reach to 6.63, 6.72 and 6.82 million gigajoules by

2015 in the baseline, moderate shift and high shift scenarios respectively; and bioethanol would account

for 4.9% of the total energy demand in all scenarios. On the other hand, the primary energy demand by

Otto IC engine vehicles in the baseline, moderate shift and high shift scenarios would increase to 7.69,



8.41 and 9.19 million gigajoules by 2030 respectively of which, bioethanol would account for 4.9%, 14%

and 18% respectively.

7.1.4 Diesel IC Engine Vehicles

The energy demand of diesel IC engine vehicles would be 61.16, 64.07 and 65.67 million gigajoules by

2017 in the baseline, moderate shift and high shift scenarios respectively; and biodiesel would account for

1.8% and 4.6% of the total energy demand in the moderate shift and high shift scenarios respectively.

Whereas, the energy demand of diesel IC engine vehicles would reach to 147.38, 174.25 and 189.36

million gigajoules by 2030 in the baseline, moderate shift and high shift scenarios respectively of which,

biodiesel would account for 6.5% and 9.3% in the moderate shift and high shift scenarios respectively.

7.1.5 Cement Industry

The energy demand of cement industries would reach to 19.89, 20.78 and 21.35 million gigajoules by

2015 in the baseline moderate shift and high shift scenarios respectively; and agricultural residues would

account for 2% of the total energy demand in both the moderate shift and high shift scenarios. While, the

energy demand of cement industries in the baseline, moderate shift and high shift scenarios would

increase to 66.69, 86.81 and 102.17 million gigajoules by 2013 respectively of which, agriculture residues

would cover 2%, 15% and 20% of the total energy demand respectively.

7.1.6 Electricity Generation

The energy demand for electricity generation would be 11.26 million gigajoules by 2015 for both

moderate and high shift scenarios of which, 45.8% would be covered by municipal solid waste. On the

other hand, the energy demand for electricity generation would reach to 31.8 and 45.06 million gigajoules

by 2030 in the moderate shift and high shift scenarios respectively; and municipal solid waste would

account for 42.6% and 45.8% of the total primary energy demand respectively.

7.2 Production

The production of bioethanol for both household sector and Otto engine vehicles would reach to 0.33,

0.65 and 0.76 million gigajoules by 2015 in the baseline, moderate and high shift scenarios respectively;

and it would increase to 0.39, 3.08 and 4.19 million gigajoules by 2030 respectively. There would no

biodiesel production in the baseline scenario. On the other hand, the production of biodiesel for diesel

engine vehicles would be 1.18 and 3.08 million gigajoules by 2017 for the moderate and high shift

scenarios respectively; and it would reach to 11.56 and 17.97 million gigajoules by 2030 respectively.

There would also no biogas production in the baseline scenario. Whereas, biogas production for

households would reach to 1.43 and 1.9 million gigajoules by 2015 in the moderate and high shift

scenarios respectively; and it would increase to 7.03 and 9.37 million gigajoules by 2030 respectively.

Charcoal production for households would be 49.52, 45.81 and 42.58 million gigajoules by 2015 in the

baseline, moderate and high shift scenarios respectively; and it would reach to 86.49, 37.6 and 30.84

million gigajoules million gigajoules by 2030 respectively (see table 7.3).

Table 7.3: Production by 2015/17 and 2030

Production (Million Gigajoules)



Bioethanol 0.33 0.65 0.76 0.39 3.08 4.19



Biogas 0 1.43 1.9 0 7.03 9.37

Charcoal 49.42 45.81 42.58 86.49 37.6 30.84



Biodiesel 0 1.18 3.08 0 11.56 17.97

7.3 Primary Resources Requirement

The primary resources requirement is automatically calculated by LEAP using bottom-up approach across

the supply chain (i.e. demand to distribution loss to production to conversion process efficiency to

primary resources requirement). It would reach to 1,501.43, 1,364.52 and 1,306.6 million gigajoules by

2015 in the baseline, moderate shift and high shift scenarios respectively; and wood requirement for

cooking and charcoal production would account for 93.2%, 90.7% and 90.7% of the total primary

resources requirement respectively (see figure 7.7 and table 7.4).

Figure 7.7: Primary resources requirement by 2015

The primary resources requirement would shift to 2,213.14, 1,241.13 and 1,040.85 million gigajoules by

2030 in the baseline, moderate shift and high shift scenarios respectively of which, wood requirement for

cooking and charcoal production would account for 94.9%, 78.9% and 66.8% respectively (see figure 7.8

and table 7.4).



Figure 7.8: Primary resources requirement by 2030

Table 7.4: Primary resources requirement by 2015/17 and 2030

Primary Resources Requirement (Million Gigajoules)



Wood 1,382.45 1,222.79 1,170.35 2,099.25 979.8 695.36

Agricultural Residues 0 0.42 0.43 0 13.02 20.43

Animal Dung 0 20.36 27.08 0 100.36 133.82

Bagasse 0 6.11 6.11 0 18.25 24.44

Municipal Solid Waste 0 5.16 5.16 0 13.55 20.62

Sugarcane Molasses 0.79 1.55 1.8 0.92 7.34 9.98

Dung and Others 82.04 72.74 60.37 46.29 0 0



Jatropha 0 2.32 6.06 0 22.76 35.39

Castor 0 1.25 3.26 0 12.26 19.06

7.4 Indicators

7.4.1 GHG Emissions Saving

Taking the assumptions of emissions saving in the moderate shift and baseline scenarios sections above,

the use of improved wood stoves would save 4.89 and 6.52 million tons of CO2e by 2015 in the moderate

and high shift scenarios respectively; and the saving would reach to 24.25 and 32.34 million tons of CO2e

by 2030 respectively. On the other hand, the use of fuel switch stoves could save 0.705, 1.54 and 2.05

million tons of CO2e by 2015 in the baseline, moderate shift and high shift scenarios respectively; and the

saving could reach to 1.81, 8.61 and 11.48 million tons of CO2e by 2030 respectively. By using bioethanol

as transport fuel, 22.5, 22.84 and 23.17 thousand tons of CO2 would be reduced by 2015 in the baseline,

moderate shift and high shift scenarios respectively; and the reduction would increase to 26.12, 81.57 and

114.57 thousand tons of CO2 by 2030 respectively. The use of biodiesel for transport would reduce 85.46

and 223.5 thousand tons of CO2 by 2017 in the baseline, moderate shift and high shift scenarios



respectively; and the reduction would reach to 839.27 and 1,304.91 thousand tons of CO2 by 2030

respectively. By using agricultural residues as a fuel for cement production, 37.32 and 38.35 thousand tons

of CO2 would be reduced by 2015 in the moderate shift and high shift scenario respectively; and the

reduction would increase to 1,169.35 and 1,834.97 thousand tons of CO2 by 2030 respectively (see table

7.5).

Table 7.5: GHG emissions saving by 2015/17 and 2030

GHG Emissions Saving (Million Tons)



CO2e Saving from IWS 0 4.89 6.52 0 24.25 32.34

CO2e Saving from FSS 0.705 1.54 2.05 1.81 8.61 11.48

CO2 Saving from Bioethanol 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.026 0.82 0.11

CO2 Saving from AR 0 0.037 0.038 0 1.17 1.83



CO2 Saving from Biodiesel 0 0.085 0.233 0 0.84 1.3

7.4.2 Wood Saving

Taking the justification of wood saving in the moderate shift scenario section above, the shift from

traditional wood stoves to IWS and FSS is also considered annually to save 3 tons and 4.8 tons of wood

per household respectively. The use of improved wood stoves would also save 6.67 and 8.89 million tons

of wood by 2015 in the moderate and high shift scenarios respectively; and the saving would reach to

33.08 and 44.1 million tons of wood by 2030 respectively. While, the use of fuel switch stoves could save

1.54, 3.35 and 4.48 million tons of wood by 2015 in the baseline, moderate shift and high shift scenarios

respectively; and the saving could reach to 3.95, 18.78 and 25.06 million tons of wood by 2030

respectively (see table 7.6).

Table 7.6: Wood saving by 2015 and 2030

Land Use (Thousand Hectares)



Wood Saving from IWS 0 6.67 8.89 0 33.08 44.1

Wood Saving from FSS 1.54 3.35 4.48 3.95 18.78 25.06

7.4.3 Foreign Currency Saving

In baseline, moderate shift and high shift scenarios, 8.12, 8.24 and 8.36 million USD would be saved from

using bioethanol as transport fuel (i.e. from reducing gasoline import) by 2015 respectively; and the saving

would reach to 9.42, 29.43 and 41.33 million USD by 2030 respectively. While, biodiesel would save 25.37

and 66.35 million USD from reducing diesel import by 2017 in the moderate and high shift scenarios

respectively; and the saving would increase to 249.18 and 387.72 million USD by 2030 respectively. In

moderate shift and high shift scenarios, 4.99 and 5.12 million USD would be saved from using

agricultural residues in cement industries (i.e. reducing fossils fuel import) by 2015 respectively; and the

saving would reach to 156.26 and 245.21 million USD by 2030 respectively (see table 7.7).



Table 7.7: Foreign currency saving by 2015/17 and 2030

Foreign Currency Saving (Million USD)



Currency Saving from Bioethanol 8.12 8.24 8.36 9.42 29.43 41.33

Currency Saving from AR 0 4.99 5.12 0 156.26 245.21



Currency Saving from Biodiesel 0 25.37 66.35 0 249.18 387.42

7.4.4 Land Use

The land required for jatropha cultivation would be 46.27 and 69.28 thousand hectares by 2017 in the

moderate shift and high shift scenarios; and it would reach to 454.45 and 404.51 thousand hectares by

2030 respectively. In moderate shift and high shift scenarios, 49.93 and 108.81 thousand hectares of land

would be required by for castor cultivation respectively by 2017; and it would reach to 490.31 and 635.28

thousand hectares by 2030 respectively (see table 7.8).

Table 7.8: Land Use by 2017 and 2030

Land Use (Thousand Hectares)



Land for Jatropha 0 46.27 69.28 0 454.45 404.51

Land for Castor 0 49.93 108.81 0 490.31 635.28

Note that, bioethanol is not directly produced from sugarcane rather it is produced from molasses. The

main product of the sugar industries is sugar. Moreover, not all the molasses is used for bioethanol

production. For these reasons, calculating the land use for sugarcane cultivation directly from bioethanol

using bottom-up approach does not indicate the real figure.



8 Chapter Eight: Discussion and Conclusion

8.1 Discussion

Wood

Wood demand in baseline scenario for both cooking and charcoal making would increase. However, it

would decrease in moderate shit and high shift scenarios due to energy efficiency improvement using

improved wood stoves and fuel switch stoves (see table 8.1). Wood would continue as a largest energy

source for the households. Its demand for cooking in the baseline scenario would increase from 1,192.36

to 1,738.89 million gigajoules. This corresponds to 89.9% and 92.8% of the total energy demand for

cooking by 2015 and 2030 respectively. The rural households’ wood demand would account for 85.7%

and 88.7% of the total wood demand for cooking by 2015 and 2030 respectively. In the moderate shift

scenario, wood demand would decrease from 1,046.96 to 823.15 million gigajoules by 2015 and 2030

respectively of which, 84.05% and 84.8% would be consumed by rural households by 2015 and 2030

respectively. On the other hand, wood demand in high shift scenario would decrease from 1,006.92 to

566.86 million gigajoules by 2015 and 2030 respectively of which, the rural households’ demand

accounted for 84.3% and 85.97% respectively. The use of improved wood stoves in the moderate shift

scenario would save 6.67 and 33.08 million tons of wood by 2015 and 2030; the corresponding CO2e

saving would reach to 4.89 and 24.25 million tons; and the revenue from carbon trading schemes would

be 24.45 and 121.25 million USD respectively. While, the use of improved wood stoves in the high shift


saving would be 6.52 and 32.34 million tons; and the revenue from carbon trading schemes would reach

to 32.6 and 161.7 million USD respectively. In addition, the use of fuel switch stoves in the moderate

shift scenario could save 3.35 and 18.78 million tons of wood by 2015 and 2030; the corresponding CO2e

saving could be 1.54 and 8.61 million tons; and the revenue from carbon trading schemes could reach to

7.7 and 43.05 million USD respectively. On the other hand, the use of fuel switch stoves in the high shift


saving could reach to 2.05 and 11.48 million tons; and the revenue from carbon trading schemes could be

10.25 and 57.4 million USD respectively.

Figure 8.1: Trends of wood demand for cooking and charcoal making



Charcoal

Charcoal demand would also increase in the baseline scenario. Whereas, it would decrease in moderate

shift and high shift scenarios due to efficiency improvement using improved charcoal stoves (see table

8.2). In the baseline scenario, charcoal demand would increase from 47.05 to 82.16 million gigajoules by

2015 and 2030 respectively of which, the urban households’ charcoal demand would be 94.9% and

90.07%; and the corresponding wood demand for making this charcoal would be 206.35 and 360.36

million gigajoules respectively. Charcoal demand in the moderate shift scenario would decrease from

43.52 to 35.72 million gigajoules by 2015 and 2030 respectively; the urban households’ charcoal demand

would account for 95.5% and 94.06% of the total charcoal demand; and the corresponding would wood

demand for charcoal making would be 190.87 and 156.65 million gigajoules respectively. In the high shift

scenario, the charcoal demand would decline from 40.45 to 29.3 million gigajoules by 2015 and 2030

respectively from which, the urban households’ charcoal demand would be 95.6% and 91.7%; and the

corresponding would wood required for charcoal making would be 177.41 and 128.5 million gigajoules

respectively.

Figure 8.2: Trends of charcoal demand for cooking

Bioethanol

Bioethanol demand for both transport and cooking would grow in all scenarios (see table 8.3). In the

baseline scenario, only for transport, bioethanol demand would increase from 0.32 to 0.38 million

gigajoules by 2015 and 2030 respectively. The corresponding foreign currency saving from using this

bioethanol in the transport sector (i.e. reducing gasoline import) would be 8.12 and 9.42 million USD

respectively. Moreover, 22.5 and 26.12 thousand tons of CO2 would be reduced by 2015 and 2030; the

revenue from carbon trading schemes could reach to 112.5 and 132.5 thousand USD; and the sugarcane

molasses required for the production of this bioethanol would reach to 0.79 and 0.92 million gigajoules

respectively. On the other hand, bioethanol demand in the moderate shift scenario would increase from

0.63 to 3.01 million gigajoules by 2015 and 2030 respectively from which, bioethanol demand for

transport sector would account for 51.9% and 39.1%; and the corresponding foreign currency saving

would reach to 8.24 and 29.43 million USD respectively. In addition, 22.84 and 81.57 thousand tons of

CO2 would be reduced by 2015 and 2030; the revenue from carbon trading schemes could reach to 114.2

and 407.85 thousand USD; and the sugarcane molasses required for production would reach to 1.55 and

7.34 million gigajoules respectively. In the high shift scenario, bioethanol demand would increase from



0.74 to 4.1 million gigajoules by 2015 and 2030 respectively of which, bioethanol demand for transport

sector would account for 45.1% and 40.3%; and the corresponding foreign currency saving would be 8.36

and 41.33 million USD respectively. Furthermore, 23.17 and 114.57 thousand tons of CO2 would be

reduced by 2015 and 2030; the revenue from carbon trading schemes could reach to 115.85 and 572.85

thousand USD; and the sugarcane molasses required for production would reach to 1.8 and 9.98 million

gigajoules respectively.

Figure 8.3: Trends of bioethanol demand for transport and cooking

Biodiesel

In both moderate shift and high shift scenarios, biodiesel demand would increase (see table 8.4). Biodiesel

demand in the moderate shift scenario would grow from 1.15 to 11.33 million gigajoules by 2017 and

2030 respectively. The corresponding foreign currency saving from using this biodiesel in the transport

sector (i.e. reducing diesel import) would reach to 25.37 and 249.18 million USD respectively. Moreover,

85.46 and 839.27 thousand tons of CO2 would be reduced by 2015 and 2030; the revenue from carbon

trading schemes could reach to 0.43 and 4.2 million USD; and Jatropha/castor required for the

production of this biodiesel would reach to 2.32/1.25 and 22.76/12.26 million gigajoules by 2017 and

2030 respectively; and the corresponding land use for the cultivation of this jatropha/castor would be

46.27/49.93 and 454.55/490.31 thousand hectares respectively. In the high shift scenario, biodiesel

demand would increase from 3.02 to 17.61 million gigajoules by 2017 and 2030 respectively. The

corresponding foreign currency saving would be 66.35 and 387.42 million USD respectively. In addition,

223.5 and 1,304.91 thousand tons of CO2 would be reduced by 2015 and 2030; the revenue from carbon

trading schemes could reach to 1.12 and 6.52 million USD; jatropha/castor required for production

would reach to 6.06/3.26 and 35.39/19.06 million gigajoules; and the corresponding land use for

cultivation would be 68.28/108.81 and 404.51/635.28 thousand hectares respectively.



Figure 8.4: Trends of biodiesel demand for transport

Biogas

Biogas demand would grow in both moderate shift and high shift scenarios (see table 8.5). In the

moderate shift scenario, biogas demand would increase from 1.4 to 6.88 million gigajoules by 2015 and

2030 respectively. The corresponding animal dung consumption for biogas production would reach to

20.36 and 100.36 million gigajoules respectively. While, biogas demand in high shift scenario would

increase from 1.86 to 9.18 million gigajoules by 2015 and 2030 respectively. The corresponding animal

dung demand for production would be 27.08 and 133.82 million gigajoules respectively.

Figure 8.5: Trends of biogas demand for cooking

Agricultural Residues

In both moderate shift and high shift scenarios, agricultural residues demand would grow (see table 8.6).

Agricultural residues demand in the moderate shift scenario would increase from 0.42 to 13.02 million

gigajoules by 2015 and 2030 respectively. The corresponding foreign currency saving of from using this



amount of agricultural residues in cement industries (i.e. reducing fossil fuels such as furnace oil, coal and

petroleum coke) would reach to 4.99 and 156.56 million USD respectively. Furthermore, 37.32 and

1,169.35 thousand tons of CO2 would be reduced by 2015 and 2030; and the revenue from carbon

trading schemes could reach to 0.186 and 5.85 million USD respectively. In the high shift scenario,

agricultural residues demand would increase from 0.43 to 20.43 million gigajoules by 2015 and 2030

respectively. The corresponding foreign currency saving would be 5.12 and 245.21 million USD

respectively. Moreover, 38.35 and 1,834.97 thousand tons of CO2 would be reduced by 2015 and 2030;

and the revenue from carbon trading schemes could reach to 0.191 and 9.17 million USD respectively.

Figure 8.6: Trends of agricultural residues demand for cement industries

Bagasse

In the moderate shift scenario, the bagasse demand for excess electricity generation to the national grid

would reach to 6.11 and 18.25 million gigajoules by 2015 and 2030 respectively. While the bagasse

demand in the high shift scenario would be 6.11 and 24.44 million gigajoules.

Municipal Solid Waste

The municipal solid waste demand for electricity generation would be 5.16 and 13.55 million gigajoules by

2015 and 2030 respectively. In the high shift scenario, the municipal solid waste demand would reach to

5.16 and 20.62 million gigajoules.

Electricity

Electricity is one of the alternative energy sources of cooking and its demand would grow in all scenarios

(see table 8.7). The electricity demand in baseline scenario would increase from 2.4 to 6.17 million

gigajoules by 2015 and 2030 respectively of which, the urban households’ electricity demand for cooking

would account for 99.5% and 99.7% respectively. In the moderate shift scenario, electricity demand

would increase from 3.99 to 22.93 million gigajoules by 2015 and 2030 respectively from which, the urban

households’ electricity demand for cooking would account for 74.3% and 77.9% respectively. Electricity

demand in the high shift scenario would grow from 5.33 to 30.6 million gigajoules by 2015 and 2030

respectively from which, the urban households’ electricity demand for cooking would account for 74.4%

and 77.9% respectively.



Figure 8.7: Trends of electricity demand for cooking

8.2 Conclusion

It is seen that the long-term shifts in the use of bioenergy have great opportunity for sustainable

development of Ethiopia by saving wood, reducing GHG emissions, saving foreign currency, generating

revenue and bioelectricity generation. Taking the high scenario case by 2030, about 65 million tons of

wood could be saved; the foreign currency saving would reach to 674 million USD; the GHG emissions

reduction would be 46 million tons of CO2e which is equivalent to 18.4% of the CO2e abatement target

of the country for 2030; the corresponding revenue from carbon trading schemes would reach to 231

million USD; and electricity generation from bagasse and municipal solid waste would be 3,672 GWh

which is about 3.7% of the total electricity generation for 2030.

The shift from traditional use of biomass to efficient and modern has significant benefits in terms of

wood saving to its economic and ecosystem services, greenhouse gas emissions saving, generating

revenue from carbon trading schemes and improving access to fuel wood. Moreover, the indoor climate

pollution from using traditional cooking stoves would significantly be reduced and so does health

problem to women and children. In addition, women and children would not go long distance to collect

fuel wood. As a result, women can have more time to do other economic activities instead of collecting

fuel wood and children can also have more time to learn. .

Wood would continue as a dominant energy source for the household sector. However, its consumption

would decrease due to energy efficiency improvement. As a result, deforestation and forest degradation

for fuel wood can significantly be reduced. Compared to baseline scenario, wood demand for cooking

would decrease by 52.7% and 67.4% by 2030 in moderate shift and high shift scenarios respectively. The

use of improved wood stoves would save 33 and 44 million tons of wood by 2030 in the moderate shift

and high shift scenarios; and the CO2e saving would reach to 24 and 32 million tons respectively. On the

other hand, the use of fuel switch stoves could save 19 and 25 million tons of wood by 2030 in the

moderate and high shift scenarios, and the CO2e saving could reach to 9 and 11 million tons; and the

revenue generated from carbon trading schemes of the CO2e saving could reach to 165 and 215 million

USD by 2030 in moderate shift and high shift scenarios respectively.



The deployment of biofuels in the transport sector can play important role on foreign currency saving

and GHG emissions reduction. By using bioethanol, it is possible to save up to 29 and 41 million USD by

2030 in the moderate shift and high shift scenarios; and up to 82 and 115 thousand tons of CO2

reduction respectively. On the other hand, the use of biodiesel can save up to 249 and 387 million USD

by 2030 in the moderate shift and high shift scenarios; up to 839 and 1,305 thousand tons of CO2

reduction; and about 5 and 7 million USD can be generating from carbon trading schemes of the CO2

reduction of both biofuels respectively.

By using agricultural residues as a fuel for cement production, the cement industries can reduce their

fossil fuels consumption as well as GHG emissions. The foreign currency saving from using agricultural

residues would reach to 156 and 245 million USD by 2030 in the moderate shift and high shift scenario;

CO2 reduction up to 1,169 and 1,835 thousand tons; and the revenue generated from carbon trading

schemes of the CO2e reduction would be 6 and 9 million USD respectively.

Electricity generation from bagasse and municipal solid waste would reach to 2,614 and 3,672 GWh by

2030 in the moderate shift and high shift scenarios which is equivalent to 2.6% and 3.7% of the total

electricity generation target for 2030 respectively.



9 Chapter Nine: Recommendation and Future Work

9.1 Recommendation

The analysis of the study shows that it is essential for the existing energy practices of Ethiopia to evolve

towards more efficient and modern use of bioenergy as a substitute of traditional use of biomass and

fossil fuels to achieve sustainable development. This can be effectively achieved if all the stakeholders

including the civil society play their own supportive role using effective policies and strategies through the

following pillars: awareness creation and capacity building, implementing effective incentives schemes,

infrastructure development, establishing decentralized institutions, improving access to energy and

implementing energy management system.

Awareness creation and capacity building: Awareness creation is crucial to increase the adoption rate

of new technologies and practices. Energy efficiency improvement in the household sector depends on

the awareness level of individual household about the benefit of using new technology. To do an effective

job at creating awareness, it is necessary to choose the right awareness creation strategy. Door to door

awareness creation strategy is important to reach majority of the households who do not have access to

television and other digital media. It is obvious that when more households shift from using traditional

cooking stoves to improved cooking stoves/fuel switch stoves, the demand for these stoves would

increase. To balance demand and supply of the cooking stoves, it is necessary to increase the capacity of

existing small-scale cooking stoves manufacturing enterprises, expand the number of new enterprises, and

build their operational, financial and marketing capabilities. Capacity building of both the existing and

future biofuels manufacturing industries is also important for increasing production to meet the growing

demand of biofuels.

Implementing effective incentive schemes: Incentive schemes encourage commitment to accomplish

a certain task in the most effective and productive way. More households would adopt new cooking

technologies when they are benefited from incentives such as subsidies, loan and carbon trading schemes.

In other words, provision of subsidies, loan and carbon trading scheme would attract more households

for using new cooking technologies. Moreover, provision of land for free, loan for initial investment and

reasonable tax holiday would attract new small-scale cooking stoves manufacturing enterprises to enter

into the market and motivate the existing enterprises to expand their capacity. Incentives such as land for

free, loan for initial investment, reasonable tax holiday and carbon trading schemes would also attract new

biofuels manufacturing industries to enter into the market and encourage the existing industries. More

cement industries would also be motivated by carbon trading schemes to introduce agriculture residues as

a fuel for cement production.

Infrastructure development: One of the characteristics of bioenergy is its long supply chain from the

source to end-use. Effective supply chain management improves accessibility and price competitiveness

of bioenergy for the end-users. Infrastructure is the key factor for successful supply chain management of

bioenergy. Development of networked infrastructures such as roads, storage areas and distribution

centers such as bioethanol and biodiesel blending stations is necessary for effective logistics of bioenergy

that minimizes waste, time, distance and cost.

Establishing decentralized institutions: The problems associated with traditional use of biomass and

fossil fuels consumption are many and diversified. However, they can be met and solved by eastabilshing

decentralized institutions which are responsible for policy and strategy formulation, research and

development, and coordination of energy related activities. Expanding energy institutions from federal to

district level is essential to undergo energy activities effectively from the ground. In addition, launching of



energy dedicated departments in the education system of universities is crucial for human resource

development (i.e. educating more energy professionals) as well as doing research and development that

support the energy sector of the country.

Improving access to energy: Tree plantation at household level and on degraded lands can improve

access to fuel wood as well as reduces deforestation of natural forest. Implementing sustainable tree

plantation programs that vary from household to country level is required for sustainable fuel wood

supply. Accessibility and price are the basic parameters that determine the preference of cooking fuels by

the households. Improving accessibility and price competitiveness of bioethanol would encourage more

households to use bioethanol cooking stoves. Animal dung is the promising biomass resources for biogas

production in rural areas at household level. Treating this abundant biomass resource for biogas

production would increase access to biogas and more rural households could use biogas cooking stoves.

The existing charcoal making process from wood is very traditionally and has low conversion efficiency

that leads to high amount of wood consumption. Introducing alternative biomass resources such as

agricultural residues for charcoal production would be crucial to minimize wood consumption,

deforestation and land degradation, and greenhouse emissions while improving access to charcoal at

competitive prices. It is also crucial to do an effective job for increasing electrification rate so that more

households can switch to electricity cooking stoves. Besides the use of agriculture residues, cement

industries are recommended to start tree plantation on their own land and old quarries so that they can

also use wood as an alternative fuel for cement production.

Implementing energy management system: Management inefficiency is the constraint that affects

implementation of policies and strategies. Implementing energy management system is useful for

continually improving energy performance. The following seven steps1 are recommended for effective

implementation of energy management system (see figure below).

1 The steps are adopted from author’s previous study: “Design of Productivity Improvement Method for Ethiopian Garment

Industries”, Master Thesis, Addis Ababa University, 2011. It can be accessed in the form of book with ISBN: 978-3848416219 from online book stores including www.amazon.com.



Finally, the analysis suggests that achieving the high shift scenario through effective policies and strategies

would provide enormous social, environmental and economical benefits. Achievements between

moderate shift and high shift scenarios are also welcomed. The long-term shifts in household energy

sector have more significant outcomes which can lead enormous sustainable development of the country

than other sectors. Therefore, household energy should be prioritized and given more attention.

9.2 Future Work

There are a number of unaddressed uncertainties in this study such as adoption rate of new technologies

and practices especially by households, management efficiency in implementing policies and strategies,

and supply chain management of bioenergy. Such uncertainties could affect the practical implementation

of the long-term shifts in bioenergy use. Therefore, future work can take these uncertainties into account

as an extension of the study.



References

[1]. Bishaw B., “Deforestation and Land Degradation in the Ethiopian Highland: A Strategy for Physical Recovery”,

Northeast African Studies, Vol. 08, 2001, pp 7-26.

[2]. Damit A. and Koch S.F., “Clean Fuel Saving Technology Adoption in Urban Ethiopia”, Working Paper,

University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 2011.

[3]. Debebe M., “Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation Now and in the Following Years”, Addis Ababa, 2011.

[4]. Debebe M., “Clean, Safe Ethanol Stoves for Refugee Homes”, The Ashden Awards for Sustainable

Energy, Addis Ababa, Gaia Association, 2008.

[5]. Dechassa B., “Challenges and Prospects of Cogeneration and Energy Efficiency Improvement in Ethiopian Sugar

Industry”, Addis Ababa, Ethiopian Sugar Development Agency Research Directorate, 2009, pp 137-

147.

[6]. Eshete G., Sonder K. and Heedge F., “Report on the Feasibility Study of a National Program for Domestic

Biogas in Ethiopia”, Addis Ababa, SNV-Ethiopia, 2006.

[7]. Guta D.D., “Assessment of Biomass Fuel Resource Potential and Utilization: Sourcing Strategies for Renewable

Energies”, International Journal of Renewable Energy Research, Vol. 2, 2012.

[8]. Kassa M., “Business Plan for Ethanol Cooking Fuel and Domestic Cook Stove Market Development in Addis

Ababa”, Addis Ababa, Partners Consultancy and Information Services, 2006.

[9]. Mazengia D.H., “Ethiopian Energy Systems: Potentials, Opportunities and Sustainable Utilization”, Master

Thesis, Uppsala, Uppsala University, 2010.

[10]. Lulie M. and Adamu M., “Energy Sector Mapping and Database Development: Renewable Energy Report”,

ROCEED Energy, Environment & Development Consult, 2012.

[11]. Lulie M. and Tesfaye G., “Energy Sector Mapping and Database Development: Biomass Energy Final

Report”, ROCEED Energy, Environment & Development Consult, 2012.

[12]. Lulie M. and Kassa M., “Energy Sector Mapping and Database Development: Energy Policy Framework Final

Report”, ROCEED Energy, Environment & Development Consult, 2012.

[13]. Lulie M., “Energy Sector Mapping and Database Development: Main Report”, ROCEED Energy,

Environment & Development Consult, 2011.

[14]. Seboka Y., Getahun M.A. and Haile-Meskel Y., “Biomass Energy for Cement Production: Opportunities in

Ethiopia”, CDM Capacity Development in Eastern and Southern Africa, New York, United Nations

Development Program, 2006.

[15]. Teka M., “Energy Policy of Ethiopia,” Geothermal Energy Conference, Addis Ababa, Ministry of

Mines and Energy, 2006.

[16]. Workneh K. and Ehete G., “National Biogas Program Ethiopia: Program Implementation Document”, Addis

Ababa, Ethiopia Rural Energy Development and Promotion Center/SNV-Ethiopia, 2008.

[17]. Anderson T. and Belay M., eds, “Rapid Assessment of Biofuels Development Status in Ethiopia and

Proceedings of National Workshop on Environmental Impact Assessment and Biofuels”, Addis Ababa,

MELCA Mahiber, 2008.

[18]. Balasubramaniyam U., Zisengwe L.S., Meriggi N. and Buysman E., “Biogas Production in Climates with

Long Cold Winters”, Wageningen, Wageningen University, 2008.

[19]. Bauen A., Berndes G., Junginger M., Londo M. and Vuille V., “Bioenergy-A Sustainable and Reliable

Energy Source”, IEA Bioenergy, Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands, 2009.

[20]. Bauer J., Feleke A. and Shemsu K., “Markets and Cash Transfers in Ethiopia: Insights from an Initial

Investment,” United Nations World Food Program, 2012.

[21]. Dias M.O.S., Ensinas A.V., Nebra S.A., Filho R.M., Rossell C.E.V., and Maciel M.R.W., “Production

of Bioethanol and Other Bio-based Material from Sugarcane Bagasse: Integration to Conventional Bioethanol

Process”, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, Vol. 87, The Institution of Chemical

Engineers, Elsevier B.V., 2009, pp 1206-1216.



[22]. Domac J., Trossero M., eds, “Industrial Charcoal Production”, Development of a Sustainable Charcoal

Industry, Zagreb, FAO/TCP/CRO/3101/, 2008.

[23]. Fol Y.L., “Renewable Energy Transition for A Sustainable Future in Namibia”, Master Thesis, Aalborg,

Aalborg University, 2012.

[24]. Garg A. and Pulles P., “IPCC Guideline for National Green House Gas Inventories”, Energy, Vol. 2, 2006.

[25]. Gerpen J.V., “Biodiesel Processing and Production”, Fuel Processing Technology, Vol. 86, Elsevier B.V.,

2004, pp 1097-1107.

[26]. Heckett T. and Aklilu N., eds, “Agrofuel Development in Ethiopia: Rhetoric, Reality and Recommendations”,

Forum for Environment in collaboration with Horn of Africa Regional Environmental Center and

Heinrick Boell Stiftung, Addis Ababa, 2008.

[27]. Islas J., Manzini F. and Masera O., “A Prospective Study of Bioenergy Use in Mexico”, Energy, Vol. 32,

Elsevier Ltd., 2007, pp 2306-2320.

[28]. Jargstrof B., “Renewable Energy and Development”, Brochure to accompany the Mobile Exhibition on

Renewable Energy in Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Factor 4 Energy Projects GmbH, 2004.

[29]. Kimble M., Pasdeloup M. and Spencer C., “Sustainable Bioenergy Development in UEMOA Member

Countries”, 2008.

[30]. Nilsson M., Heaps C., Carson M., Pachuari S., Kok M., Olsson M., Rehman I., Schaeffer R., Wood

D., Vuuren D., Riahi K., Americano B. and Mulugeta Y., “Energy for a Shared Development Agenda:

Global Scenarios and Governance Implications”, Stockholm, Stockholm Environment Institute, 2012.

[31]. Overend R.P., “Biomass Conversion Technologies”, Golden, National Renewable Energy Laboratory,

2007.

[32]. Sander K., Hyseni B. and Haider W., “Wood-Based Biomass Energy Development for Sub-Saharan Africa:

Issues and Approaches”, Washington D.C., The International Bank for Reconstruction and

Development/The World Bank Group, 2011.

[33]. Schutzeichel H., “The Initiation of Solar Trade in Ethiopia, 2005-2011”, Munchausen/ Zürich/Addis

Ababa, Stiftung Solarenergie-Solar Energy Foundation, 2012.

[34]. Silveira S. and Khatiwada D., “Ethanol Production and Fuel Substitution in Nepal-Opportunity to Promote

Sustainable Development and Climate Change Mitigation”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,

Vol. 14, Elsevier Ltd., 2010, pp 1644-1652.

[35]. Steierer F., “Highlights of on Wood Charcoal: 2004-2009”, FOASTAT-ForesSTAT, 2011.

[36]. Zupancic G.D. and Grilc V., “Anaerobic Treatment and Biogas Production from Organic Waste”,

Management of Organic Waste, InTech, 2012.

[37]. Central Statistics Agency of Ethiopia, “Welfare Monitoring Survey 1996: Statistical Report”, Addis

Ababa, 1999.

[38]. Central Statistics Agency of Ethiopia, “Welfare Monitoring Survey 1998: Statistical Report”, Addis

Ababa, 1999.

[39]. Central Statistics Agency of Ethiopia, “Welfare Monitoring Survey 2000: Statistical Report”, Vol. 2,

Addis Ababa, 2001.

[40]. Central Statistics Agency of Ethiopia, “Welfare Monitoring Survey 2004: Statistical Report”, Indicators

on Living Standard, Accessibility, Household Assets, Food Security and HIV/AIDS, Addis Ababa,

2004.

[41]. Central Statistics Agency of Ethiopia, “Welfare Monitoring Survey 2011: Statistical Report”, Indicators

on Living Standard, Accessibility and Household Assets, Vol. 2, Addis Ababa, 2012.

[42]. Environmental Protection Authority of Ethiopia, “Environmental Policy of Ethiopia,” Addis Ababa,

1997.

[43]. Ethio Resource Group, “Diversity and Security for the Ethiopian Power System: A Preliminary Assessment of

Risks and Opportunities for the Power Sector”, 2009.



[44]. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia “Ethiopia’s Climate Resilient Green Economy: Green Economy

Strategy”, Addis Ababa, 2011.

[45]. Ministry of Mine and Energy of Ethiopia, “Biofuels Development and Utilization Strategy”, Addis Ababa,

2007.

[46]. Ministry of Water and Energy of Ethiopia “Scaling-up Renewable Energy Program: Ethiopia Investment

Group”, Addis Ababa, 2012.

[47]. Ministry of Water and Energy of Ethiopia, “National Program for Improved Household Biomass Cooking

Stoves Development and Promotion in Ethiopia”, Addis Ababa, 2013.

[48]. Ministry of Water and Energy of Ethiopia, “Fuel wood-Efficient Stoves Investment Plan from 2012 to

2015”, Addis Ababa, 2011.

[49]. Ministry of Water and Energy of Ethiopia, “Energy Balance and Statistics for Years 2005/6 to 2009/10”,

Addis Ababa, 2011.

[50]. Center of Sustainable System, “Municipal Solid Waste Factsheet”, Michigan, University of Michigan,

2012.

[51]. European Renewable Energy Council, “Creating Markets for Renewable Energy Technologies EU RES

Technology Marketing Campaign”, Bioethanol Production and Use, Brussels, European Biomass

Energy Association, 2006.

[52]. European Union Energy Initiative Partnership Dialogue Facility, “Capacity Building for Off-grid Rural

Electrification Planning at the Regional Level in Ethiopia”, 2011.

[53]. Japan International Cooperation Agency, “Energy Policy of Ethiopia: Country Report”, Tokyo

International Centre, 2010.

[54]. International Energy Agency, “World Energy Outlook 2012”, Paris, OCED/IEA, 2012.

[55]. International Energy Agency, “Technology Roadmap: Bioenergy for Heat and Power”, Paris, OCED/IEA,

2012.

[56]. International Energy Agency, “Measuring Progress towards Energy for All”, World Energy Outlook

2012, OECD/IEA, 2012.

[57]. Stockholm Environment Institute, “Long-range Energy Alternatives Planning System: User Guideline for

Version 2011”, Somerville, 2011.

[58]. United Nations Economic Commission for African Climate Policy Centre, “Critical Issues in Bioenergy

for Africa: Exploring the Opportunities, Constraints and Trade-Offs”, Working Paper 11, United Nations

Economic Commission for Africa, 2011.

[59]. World Energy Council, “Biofuels: Policies, Standards and Technologies”, London, 2010.

[60]. World Health Organization, “Global Health Risks: Mortality and Burden of Disease Attributable to Selected

Major Risks”, Geneva, 2009.

[61]. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), Organizational Profile of Energy

Corrdination Office, Available at http://www.giz.de/themen/en/30559.htm [Accessed March

2013].

[62]. Docstoc, Cane Molasses Typical Analysis, Available at

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/70265104/Cane-Molasses [Accessed July 2013].

[63]. Earth Policy Institute (EPI), Biodiesel Production in Ten Leading Countries and the World in

2011, Available at www.earth-policy.org/datacenter/xls/book_fpep_ch4_all.xlsx [Accessed May

2013].

[64]. Environment Protection Authority (EPA), Organizational Profile of EPA, Available at

http://www.epa.gov.et/default.aspx [Accessed February 2013].

[65]. Energypedia, Ethiopia Energy Situation, Available at

https://energypedia.info/wiki/Ethiopia_Energy_Situation#Overview [Accessed August 2013].

[66]. Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation (EEPCo), Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam Project,

Available at http://www.eepco.gov.et/project.php?pid=1&pcatid=2 [Accessed February, 2013].



[67]. Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation (EEPCo), Organizational Profile of EEPCo, Available at

http://www.eepco.gov.et/corporationprofile.php [Assessed February 2013].

[68]. Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation (EEPCo), Facts about Hydro Power Plants, Available at

http://www.eepco.gov.et/projectcat.php?pcatid=2# [Accessed March 2013].

[69]. Ethiopian Sugar Corporation (ESCo), New Sugar Development Projects, Available at

http://www.etsugar.gov.et/en/projects/item/23-new-sugar-development-projects.html [Accessed

March 2013].

[70]. Ethiopian Sugar Corporation (ESCo), Organizational Profile of ESCo, Available at

http://www.etsugar.gov.et/en/about.html [Accessed March 2013]

[71]. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Jatropha Cultivation, Available at

http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1219e/i1219e02.pdf, Vol. 8, 2010 [Accessed June 2013].

[72]. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Yield of Caster Seed in Ethiopia in 2011, Available at

http://faostat3.fao.org/home/index.html#DOWNLOAD [Accessed June 2013].

[73]. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), Land Area Distribution of Ethiopia in 2011, Available

at http://faostat.fao.org/site/377/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=377#ancor [Accessed June

2013].

[74]. Gaia Worldwide, Organizational Profile of Gaia Association in Ethiopia, Available at

http://www.projectgaia.com/page.php?page=ethiopia [Accessed March 2013].

[75]. Horn of Africa Regional Environment Center (HoAREC), Organizational Profile of HoAREC,

Available at http://www.hoarec.org/ [Accessed March 2013].

[76]. International Energy Agency (IEA), 2009 Energy Balance of Ethiopia, Available at

http://www.iea.org/stats/balancetable.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=ET [Accessed February 2013].

[77]. International Energy Agency (IEA), Bioenergy, Available at http://www.iea.org/topics/bioenergy/

[Accessed January 2013].

[78]. Ministry of foreign affairs (MoFA), Water Management Policy of Ethiopia, Available at

http://www.mfa.gov.et/docs/Ethiopian%20Water%20Policy.pdf [Accessed March 2013].

[79]. Ministry of Water and Energy (MoWE), Organizational Profile of MoME, Available at

http://www.mowr.gov.et/ [Accessed February 2013].

[80]. Ministry of Water and Energy (MoWE): Organizational Profile of Ethiopian Electricity Agency,

Available at http://www.mowr.gov.et/EEA/Index.php [Accessed February 2013].

[81]. Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), World Fuel Ethanol Production in 2010, Available at

http://ethanolrfa.org/pages/World-Fuel-Ethanol-Production [Accessed May 2013].

[82]. Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), The Production of Ethanol from Cellulosic Biomass,

Available at http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/how-ethanol-is-made [Accessed May 2013].

[83]. Stichting Nederlandse Vrijwilligers (SNV), Households in Ethiopia to Access Credit for Biogas

digesters, Available at http://www.snvworld.org/en/sectors/renewable-energy/news/households-

in-ethiopia-to-access-credit-for-biogas-digesters [Accessed March 2013].

[84]. The Partnership for Clean Indoor Air: Mission Statement of EREDPC, Available at

http://www.pciaonline.org/node/143 [Accessed March 2013].

[85]. United Nations Development Program (UNDP), Profile of UNDP in Ethiopia, Available at

http://www.et.undp.org/content/ethiopia/en/home/ourwork/environmentandenergy/overview.

html [Accessed March 2013].

[86]. United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), Profile of UNEP in Ethiopia, Available at

http://www.unep.org/roa/addis_ababa_site/index.asp [Assessed March 2013].

[87]. United States Energy Information Administration-International Energy Statistics, Energy Statistics

of Ethiopia, Available at http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm [Accessed

March 2013].

[88]. United States National Biodiesel Board (USNBB), Biodiesel Basics, Available at



http://www.biodiesel.org/what-is-biodiesel/biodiesel-basics [Accessed May 2013].

[89]. World Bank, Goals of World Bank towards Ethiopia, Available at

http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/ethiopia [Accessed March 2013].

[90]. World Bank, Population Data of Ethiopia, Available at

http://search.worldbank.org/data?qterm=ethiopian+population+from+2000+to+2012&language

=EN&format= [Accessed May 2013].

[91]. World Bank, GDP Data of Ethiopia (Constant 2000 USD), Available at

http://search.worldbank.org/data?qterm=ethiopia%20gdp&language=EN [Accessed May 2013].

[92]. World Bank, 2011 GDP of Ethiopia (Current USD), Available at

http://data.worldbank.org/country/ethiopia [Accessed June 2013].



Annexes

Annex 1: Net Calorific Value and CO2 Emission Factor (Source: [24], [34], [62],

[71])

Net Calorific Value and CO2 Emission

Fuel Net Calorific Value (GJ/Ton) CO2 Emission Factor (Kg/GJ)

Wood 15.6 112

Charcoal 29.5 112

Agricultural Residues 14.5 100

Animal Dung 12 100

Bagasse 16 100

Municipal Solid Waste 11.6 100

Bioethanol 26.8 79.6

Biodiesel 37.5 70.8

Biogas 20 54.6

Sugarcane Molasses 12.7 -

Jatropha Seed 25 -

Kerosene 43.8 71.9

LPG 47.3 63.1

Gasoline 43.4 69.3

Diesel 42.4 74.1

Residual Fuel Oil 40.4 77.4

Coking Coal 28.2 94.6

Petroleum Coke 32.5 97.5

Note that, most of the above data are taken from reference 24, reference 34 is for net calorific value of

bioethanol and biodiesel, reference 62 for net calorific value of sugarcane molasses, and reference 71 for

net calorific value of jatropha.

Annex 2: Percentage Distribution of Households by Cooking Fuel in Ethiopia

(Source: [37], [38], [39], [40], [41])

Percentage Distribution of Urban Households by Cooking Fuel

Cooking Fuel 1996 1998 2000 2004 2011

Wood 61.7 62.9 57.9 65.33 63.31

Charcoal 4.3 5 8.3 7.65 17.54

Electricity 2.7 3.8 2.2 2.36 6.18

Kerosene 18.9 17.2 21.5 13.84 4.93

LPG 1 2.5 1.4 2.69 1.05

Biogas - - - - -

Dung, Sawdust, Crop Residues and Others 11.4 8.5 8.7 6.1 3.4

None Cook - - - 1.91 3.57

Not Stated - - - 0.11 0.01




Percentage Distribution of Rural Households by Cooking Fuel

Cooking Fuel 1996 1998 2000 2004 2011

Wood 75.5 78.2 78.8 84.45 90.85

Charcoal 0.1 0.1 0 0.16 0.23

Electricity 0 0 0 0.05 0.01

LPG 0 0.1 0.1 0.07 0.04

Kerosene 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.21 0.17

Biogas - - - - -

Dung, Sawdust, Crop Residues and Others 24.6 21.5 20.8 14.99 8.6

None Cook - - - 0.05 0.11

Not Stated - - - 0.01 0.0000103

Number of Households 8,856.288 9,683,035 9,853,558 11,325,052 12,707,493

Annex 3: Sugar and Bioethanol Development Projects in Ethiopia (Source: ESCo)

Sugar and Bioethanol Development Projects

Factory

Annual Sugar Production

Capacity (Ton)

Annual Bioethanol

Production Capacity

(Million Liters)

Region

Old New

Fincha 110,000 160,000 20 Oromia

Wonji Shoa 75,000 173,946 10.3 "

Methara 136,692 - 12.5 "

Tendaho 619,000 55.4 Afar

Kuraz (1 to 5) 278,000 (*3) 26.2 (*3)

SNNP 556,000 (*2) 52.4 (*2)

Beles (1 to 3) 242,000 (*3) 20.8 (*3) Amhara

Kesem 153,000 12.5 Oromia

Wolkaiyt 242,000 20.8 Tigray

Annex 4: Land Use for Sugarcane Cultivation in Ethiopia (Source: ESCo)

Land Use for Sugarcane Cultivation

Factory Land (Hectares) Water Supply Region

Fincha 21,000 Fincha River Oromia

Wonji Shoa 16,000 Awash River "

Methara 10,300 Awash River "

Tendaho 50,000 Awash River Afar

Kuraz (1 to 5) 175,000 Omo River SNNP

Beles 75,000 Beles River Amhara

Kesem 20,000 Kesem River Oromia

Wolkaiyt 45,000 Zarema River Tigray



Annex 5: Trend of Bioethanol Blend in Ethiopia (Source: MoWE)

Company Trend of Blended Bioethanol (Liters)

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Nile Petroleum 1,648,333 5,146,642 6,110,936 6,110,936 2,390,241

Oil Libya - - - 2,827,372 6,489,894

Nitional Oil Company - - - - 1,248,077

Total 1,648,333 5,146,642 6,110,936 8,938,308 10,128,212

Annex 6: List of Investors for Biodiesel Development in Ethiopia (Source: MoWE,

[10])

Name of PLCs Total Allocated Land

(Hectares)

Land Cultivated

(Hectares) Region

Fri-Ei Ethiopia 30,000 450 SNNP

S & P Enegy Solution 50,000 600 Benishangul Gumuz

Atrif Alternative Enegy 108 61 SNNP

Agro Peace Bio Ethiopia 49,000 2,000 Somalia

Africa Power Initative 50,000 17,000 Tigray

Save the Envoroment - 12 Somalia

ORDA - 6,000 Amhara

MART - - Tigray

The Giving Tree Nursery 100 - Oromia

Annex 7: List of Contacts during the Fieldwork

Name Position Organization

Tesfaye Alemayehu Bioenergy Case Team Leader MoWE

Betelihem Mekonnen Biofuel Standards Development

Senior Expert “

Tagay Girma Biofuel Development Follow-up

Expert “

Tesfaye Abebe Clean Development Mechanism and

Environment Senior Expert “

Dereje Beyene Senior Energy Analyst “

Woldemedhin Merete Biofuel Development Follow-up

Medium Expert “

Kiflom Gebrehiwot Biofuel Technology Medium Expert “

Tsige Merid Biofuel Marketing Senior Expert “

Nadewu Tadele Director, Biofuel Development

Coordination Directorate “

Zewditu Negede

Executive Secretary, Biofuel

Development Coordination

Directorate

“

Abinet Muhummed Electrical Engineer EEPCo

Yilma Tibebu Director, Communication ESCo



Directorate

Dawit Dagnew Knowledge Management Officer GIZ Energy Coordination Office

Note that, there are other experts and officials who were contacted during the fieldwork in addition to the

above list of contacts.

Annex 8: Survey Questionnaire

The survey questionnaire for the study is submitted as a separate document.

modeling and analysis of long-term shifts in bioenergy...

Documents